The myth and reality have been on display in recent weeks over The Post’s coverage of whether White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is helping or hurting President Obama.

It began Feb. 21 with an op-ed column by Dana Milbank, who countered calls for Obama to sack Emanuel. Milbank forcefully argued that the president suffered first-year political losses because he ignored Emanuel’s advice.

More than a week later, a 2,300-word front-page story by reporter Jason Horowitz embraced Milbank’s thesis. It said a “contrarian narrative is emerging” that Emanuel is “a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice.”

That prompted reader complaints and blogosphere chatter that The Post, having been “spun” by Emanuel’s camp, decided to institutionally support the embattled chief of staff through Milbank’s column and the Horowitz story.

But if there was a newsroom conspiracy, legendary Post political journalist David Broder didn’t get the memo. In a Thursday op-ed, he ridiculed Milbank’s column as “remarkable fiction” and said Horowitz had written “a purported news story.” Together, he wrote, they “sounded, for all the world, like the kind of orchestrated leaks that often precede a forced resignation in Washington.”

Horowitz told me that his story “had already started taking shape” before Milbank’s column appeared and dismissed the notion of coordination. “We did not confer,” he said. Milbank said the same, adding that he knew Horowitz was working on an Emanuel profile but didn’t know its content.

As a columnist, it’s Milbank’s job to offer a point of view. And it’s fine for Broder to use his column to assert that Milbank is off base. Differing views, well argued, are what make opinion pages stimulating.

But a news story is different. It needs to inform in a way that is balanced, authoritative and transparent to readers.

Horowitz told me the thesis for his story emerged from neutral, broad reportorial inquiry. As he talked to a wide range of informed people before Milbank’s column appeared, he said, many debunked the Emanuel-is-the-problem view. “It wasn’t just a few isolated people,” he said, adding that many offered “a new view.” That, and his anecdotal account of Emanuel’s activities, formed “the news value of it.”

Broder disagreed. “There was no news in it,” he insisted to me. “You should expect to find news on the front page of the newspaper.”

I think Broder is partially right. The Horowitz story deserved to be in The Post. While offering no major revelations, it did flesh out the thesis. But Milbank’s column already had sparked days of discussion in political circles and among the public. Displaying Horowitz’s story at the top of the front page elevated its significance despite a late-to-the-game feel.

A greater problem, I think, was its heavy reliance on anonymous quotes. At least a dozen people were quoted by name, showing depth of reporting. But there were more than a half dozen others quoted anonymously, comprising more than a quarter of the story’s length. Most supported Emanuel. The story could have stood on its own without them.

Readers properly complain about The Post’s overuse of anonymous sources. They’re often unavoidable, and Horowitz said he granted anonymity only after failing to persuade sources to speak on the record. But assertions offered with impunity erode credibility, especially when politically savvy readers suspect that Emanuel supporters are trying to spin The Post.

In the first two months of this year, more than 70 Post stories have relied on anonymous quotes. Based on archival research, that’s well ahead of the pace for last year. Simply put, too many appear in The Post.

Broder said he was troubled by the number of anonymous sources in Horowitz’s story. “I think it’s a general problem at this paper,” he said, adding “it’s a particular problem when it involves a matter of policy or personnel and readers are left in the dark about who’s talking.”

But Broder’s column criticizing Milbank and Horowitz contained a beefy section that anonymously reported “what others in the White House think is going on” with Emanuel.

“I’m not pure about it,” Broder readily acknowledged. “I did it myself.”

This column was originally published in The Washington Post on March 7, 2010.

The editorial argued that “enactment of a sound health-care reform bill this year remains urgent” and said “the President’s proposal would greatly expand access to essential health care while beginning to contain its costs, without compromising its quality.”

But Allan Block, the chairman of Block Communications Inc., sponsored a full-page ad that maintained that “the economy must recover before we can cure health care” and argued that President Obama’s proposal will destroy jobs and reduce hiring.”

Paula Steinker wrote to me that “as The Blade’s ombudsman and a journalism professor, you must be very embarrassed … The Blade must maintain at least the appearance of objectivity.”

Sorry, Ms. Steinker, but I am actually very proud that this newspaper allows and is willing to air diversity of opinion – even among the newspaper’s owners. John Robinson Block is the publisher and the editor-in-chief of The Blade.

His twin brother Allan is chairman of the board. They disagree on the health-care proposal, obviously – as I suspect do many family members in this nation. Neither brother has attempted to prevent the other from sharing his views with our readers.

That strikes me as being completely healthy.

==

Thomas Pellitieri was one of several readers who found it odd that The Blade ran a long story about Tom Noe on the front page – especially since it was written by the Columbus Dispatch.

Why? he wondered. What was new? He also found the headline, which quoted Noe as saying, “God has a plan for me,” highly offensive, especially since it appeared on a Sunday.

Good questions. The answer is that this is the first interview Noe, the former coin dealer and political power broker now in Ohio’s Hocking Correctional Facility, has given since he went to prison following perhaps the politically most important fraud case in Ohio history. The Blade’s exposure of Noe’s criminal activities, including the theft of millions of Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation funds, was an enormous scandal, which experts think contributed to the landslide 2006 Democratic victories in Ohio.

What Noe now says about all this was something the editors thought would be highly interesting to the people in his hometown.

If Mr. Pelliteri found his statement “God has a plan for me” offensive, it needs to be noted that these are Noe’s words, not The Blade’s. The editors thought that might provide some insight into how the man convicted of stealing $13 million from the state thinks.

Incidentally, the term that came to my mind when I read those words was not offensive, but chutzpah. (As in, what nerve!)

==

Reader Kent Gardam thought The Blade showed bias toward the Jon Stainbrook faction in a March 2 story about the Lucas County Board of Elections. The Republican Party in the county, as everyone in local politics knows, is in a state of civil war, with both Mr. Stainbrook and Jeff Simpson claiming to be the rightful party chairman.

Both factions had their own candidate for the elections board. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said she was prevented by law from trying to sort out which faction was which and instead picked an old GOP warhorse, Ben Marsh, to fill the seat.

Mr. Gardam didn’t challenge the story’s facts but thought The Blade showed bias by mentioning in the headline that Mr. Stainbrook was denied his seat, while not mentioning David Dmytryka, the Simpson faction’s candidate for the board, till very late in the story.

Tom Troy, who covers politics for The Blade, said the emphasis was because Mr. Stainbrook, a far more visible figure, nominated himself to the board. Mr. Dmytryka is far less prominent and was essentially the Simpson faction’s candidate for the board.

That makes sense to me, but I do agree with the reader that Mr. Dmytryka’s name should have been mentioned far higher in the story, when the newspaper explained that neither candidate had been appointed. I don’t think that there was any deliberate bias; the reporter was merely trying to relay a series of complicated facts on deadline, and it is far easier for anyone to later criticize how they happened to be put together.

Mr. Gardam also questioned The Blade’s relating that Mr. Marsh, who is 82, lives in “a South Toledo retirement complex.” He felt that it was designed to call attention to his age.

In fact, old-timers (like me) think of Ben Marsh in connection with Maumee politics, and it is pertinent that he now lives in Toledo.

This column was originally published in the Toledo Blade on March 7, 2010.

It had a mix of regional, national and international news that good local papers are supposed to bring to readers. I sometimes criticize reporters and editors here, pointing out errors and taste issues, as I see them. I think it’s important to praise journalists here when appropriate. The Thursday paper was a role model for journalism.

Horrible coincidences are part of life and part of the news, and reporter Eva Ruth Moravec captured the horror of losing a child suddenly — twice last week. She wrote a Page 1 story Thursday about Victor Adame, 18, a local soldier who had driven all the way from Virginia to see his family between assignments. He spoke by cell phone with his wife at 6:06 the night before Valentine’s Day and died about 90 minutes later when he apparently rear-ended a fuel truck on Interstate 10, just 25 miles from home.

Two days earlier, Moravec had another Page 1 piece, about 17-year-old Jesse Yanez, who tripped over a curb and was run over and killed by a pickup truck a few hours after Adame died. Adding to the tragedy, Yanez was on his way to his father’s home, a father with whom he only recently connected.

Here’s another coincidence, not as tragic as burying your child, but did you notice reporter Craig Kapitan’s vivid account, also Thursday, of the murder trial in Victoria of Joe Estrada, who just turned 20? He was convicted later that day of capital murder in the killing of restaurateur Viola Barrios, who was killed by an arrow shot into her head. Prosecutors Wednesday called as an expert witness Gary Gassman, whose family owns an archery business.

On the preceding page was an obituary for Gassman’s mother, Alma, who, the headline said, “helped operate her family’s archery shop.” She was 97 and, a grandson said, “It was just her time to go.” You can’t say the same about the two boys-about-to-become-men who died last weekend.

From election coverage to Tiger Woods’ return to the public eye to the CPS Energy lawsuit settlement to gripping reads, the Thursday paper was full of information interesting for both visiting and local readers.

Just to keep us humble, however, a reader from Fredericksburg, Chris Berger, assailed the Express-News in a letter to the editor for too many stories about animal abuse, closing with: “You disgust me.”

Another letter writer, retired Army Master Sgt. Patrick R. Conley and Vietnam War vet, chided editors for a Monday Page 1 headline, “Civilians killed during intensive fight for city,” about the U.S./Afghan assault on Marjah, a Taliban stronghold. “A lot of good people die,” Conley wrote. “That is one reason it is called war.”

And Mavis Caudill, who said she “is not related to … or acquainted with” any of the participants, complained that a Feb. 10 story, “Students put brains to test in competition,” about the Academic WorldQuest, had too much information, including a photo, of the Reagan High School scholars and too little about the winning team – Alex Parma, Erica Dietzel, Sean Larson and Garrett Shuffield from Communications Arts High School in the Northside ISD.

She’s right. I hope mentioning it here will help provide balance.

This column was published in the San Antonio Express-News on February 21, 2010.

“I am hearing these concerns and sharing the experiences of the Organization of New Ombudsmen in improving journalistic accuracy and fairness, accountability and transparency, independence and credibility at news organizations around the world,” Hanif reports in his blog, “Hanif on Media.”

“How Azeris choose to develop their news organizations obviously will be their decisions. The societal challenges are not to be taken lightly,” he wrote.

“I’m hopeful that, as elsewhere, Azeris from editors to layman, business people to officialdom, can realize benefits from ONO’s experience in bolstering journalistic independence and accountability, thus promoting free and thriving societies.”

Read Hanif’s blog from Azerbaijan

I still hear those complaints, but now I am hearing from others asking, “Why are you picking on Obama?”

Allow me to quote Chicago newspaperman Peter Finley Dunne, who wrote in one of his columns (excuse the Irish brogue): “Th newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward.”

The most important part of that sentence is “comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.” Most reporters and editors take that to heart. A newspaper challenges authority, regardless of which side is in power. It also speaks for those who have no voice — senior citizens, prisoners, children, the mentally ill and the handicapped.

It is those factors — not political biases — that guide what Tribune journalists decide to publish. Managing Editor for News and Business Terry Orme explains:

“We emphasize the stories that we believe are most important to our readers, the issues and events that affect them and that they care about. … When we have a lot of news and limited space, we trim down our stories to get more of them into the paper. It can be a painful process, because you are taking out context. But it can also be healthy, because people’s time is valuable.”

The migration of news readers to online also gives newspapers the opportunity for a more diverse selection of news. Because there are no space limitations on the Web and it can be updated all day, virtually any story can have its moment.

“We have the ability to update our lineup quickly,” said Breaking News Editor Michael Nakoryakov. “That allows me to use, in addition to breaking stuff, stories that are just ‘interesting’ if sometimes lightweight. We also post hot national stuff — unemployment numbers, economic growth or Afghanistan operations — in prominent positions.”

Several years ago, we set about measuring the bias of the newspaper by assigning a staff member to randomly pick articles, graphics and photos from the newspaper over the course of several months and then quantify and analyze the numbers. We found that women and minorities seemed underrepresented in some of our sections. We have worked to overcome this. But we did not find that news stories failed to find balance in telling about events or people.

Since we are getting complaints from both conservatives and liberals, we take that to mean we’re getting our job done.

This column was originally published in The Salt Lake Tribune on February 12, 2010.

Stars and Stripes said on Sept. 3 that as a result of its recent work “reporters from numerous media outlets have obtained copies of their own Rendon profiles and learned details of how they were blacklisted or secretly managed by public affairs officers.”

The newspaper had quoted from Rendon reports that provided advice on dealing with two unidentified reporters, but it produced no evidence that those recommendations had been acted upon and no reporters claiming to have been blacklisted or secretly managed.

On Aug. 29, the newspaper said Maj. Patrick Seiber, a PAO, had rejected two embed requests during his year in Afghanistan “based partly on what he read in the profiles,” concerns that involved one reporter’s accuracy and the other’s treatment of classified information. It offered no other examples of embed requests being rejected or any cases of journalists being steered.

All told, the number of journalists reported as having seen their files was three, one of whom did not appear to have been interviewed at length and the others not at all.

On Aug. 28, the newspaper said an unidentified “Pentagon correspondent” had quickly obtained her file the day before, reporting only that she said it was current through July. The next day, it reprised that mention.

The other journalists cited as having seen their files were P.J. Tobia and Nir Rosen, but neither had been contacted by the newspaper. Instead, it used comments from their blogs, in Rosen’s case without so noting, implying he had been interviewed.

Taken with the two preceding paragraphs, Rosen’s comments appeared to confirm that he was among “numerous” reporters who had just discovered “how they were blacklisted or secretly managed.”

But the newspaper neglected to mention that Rosen and Tobia had obtained their Rendon files from the military well before Stars and Stripes’ stories appeared and that neither had complained of mistreatment.

Tobia, who has been published in the Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor, wrote that he got his Rendon report, dated May 5, around the end of May.

Rosen, aware and supportive of Stars and Stripes’ initial reporting on the Rendon files but not that his name had later appeared in the paper, told me in response to an e-mail query that officers had twice shown him his file, in June and July, and even given him a copy.

Rosen, who has written for the Washington Post, New York Times, Mother Jones and the New Yorker, also disputed Stars and Stripes’ summation of his uncredited blog.

The paper said in its Sept. 3 analysis of military media policy: “Freelancer Nir Rosen, who has reported downrange for Time and Rolling Stone, said military officials overseas nearly blocked his embed requests because profiles labeled him as an opponent of the Iraq war and warned that he might ‘circumvent security and administrative restrictions in order to pursue other story angles’ — charges he vehemently denied.”

Rosen told me: “I was not nearly blocked, or at least I wouldn’t categorize it like that, and I didn’t vehemently deny anything,” adding, “I don’t usually do anything vehemently.” He said that had he been barred or nearly so or had felt steered, he would have said so publicly: “It would have made for a great story.”

The strongest language I found on his blog was a sentence disputing a Rendon statement: “That last part was definitely wrong.”

Rosen, who has accompanied both American and Taliban forces, with the latter venture of some concern to Rendon, told on his blog of a PAO describing his file as “the most alarming report about a journalist that he had ever seen.” But Rosen wrote that his embed request to report on counterinsurgency operations was approved anyway.

“I’ve been embedded three times and always treated very well, despite my works and criticism of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Rosen told me.

Neither Rosen nor Tobia said he had been denied embeds because of the Rendon reports nor felt steered or managed, despite criticisms by Rendon.

That information was not reported.

Rosen told me his report identified the Rendon employees who had worked on it.

Tobia, whose blog says he lives in Kabul, wrote in August that “most reporters in Afghanistan know about these reports,” that “every Kabul journo” knew that “the military hired Rendon,” though some had complained the company wouldn’t give them theirs, and that he had even socialized in Kabul with Rendon analysts who boasted over drinks of their power.

Those comments were not reported.

Just as some journalists were aware their work was being monitored, collected and analyzed by the military and contractors like Rendon, others, like the unidentified Pentagon correspondent, clearly were not.

Stars and Stripes’ editor, Terry Leonard, said that after the newspaper thrust the issue of Rendon’s contract into the spotlight, two leading journalists had complained privately that they had not known of the files, with one coming to believe an embed had been denied because of them.

What is undeniable is that Stars and Stripes’ articles suddenly made the reports newsworthy even for journalists who already knew the military, and in some cases even Rendon, was compiling files on their work.

Jason Motlagh wrote on Time.com that he saw his Rendon file last summer when a PAO mistakenly e-mailed it to him, just before denying an embed with Special Forces.

Paul McLeary wrote at AviationWeek.com that in the summer of 2008, while aboard ship covering a Navy mission in the Caribbean, he had actually received e-mail from a Rendon analyst who said she was “tracking” his and other reporters’ work.

Thomas E. Ricks, who received a Pulitzer Prize reporting on the military for the Wall Street Journal and later covered the beat for the Washington Post, said on his blog Sept. 1 that “twice in the past I’ve actually been shown official military files on me.”

“Despite huffing and puffing by Stars & Stripes, this is not [a] big deal,” he wrote.

Ron Martz, president of the association Military Reporters and Editors, was quoted Aug. 24 in Stars and Stripes saying, “The whole concept of doing profiles on reporters who are going to embed with the military is alarming.”

But in a later letter to Congress urging an investigation of the Rendon contract and its possible impact on news coverage, Martz allowed that “those of us who have covered military affairs have known for years that the military has kept unofficial dossiers on reporters to determine their level of competence and the types of stories on which they are likely to report.”

All told, the five Rendon stories preceding the Sept. 3 analysis of military media policy cited six people who had provided information directly to it – four military PAO’s, one Defense Department spokesman, and the unidentified Pentagon correspondent who said her file was current through July 2009.

Neither of the two other journalists cited, Rosen and Tobia, were ever contacted, and in Rosen’s view his uncredited blog comments were misrepresented on Sept. 3.

In all six articles, published documentary source information relating directly to the Rendon files was taken from two Rendon reports, e-mailed responses to queries sent to Rendon, and one of two public statements Rendon issued, on Aug. 26 and Sept. 3.

The newspaper cited six people who all provided supportive opinions – journalism advocates, media analysts, “military watchdogs” and “one servicemember,” the last a departure from newspaper policy that anonymous sources be quoted only to present vital information that cannot be done so any other way.

No one outside the military or Department of Defense was quoted defending or providing a rationale for the file-keeping or Rendon’s contract to do it.

Leonard defended the newspaper’s reporting and cited the praise the articles garnered from journalists and advocacy groups. Since his comments, the articles have also been honored with a prestigious Polk Award.

Leonard takes strong exception to any suggestion that based on what was published, the Rendon articles may appear undersourced to the average reader.

“Stars and Stripes’ investigation of the U.S. military’s program to compile profiles of reporters and attempt to steer their coverage of the war in Afghanistan was consistently even-handed, accurate and balanced,” he wrote in a statement that accompanied publication of the first ombudsman’s column in this review.

In my view, Leonard and the editor who oversaw the coverage, Howard Witt, could have been more rigorous in pressing their reporters and presenting their findings in a way that would assure readers of the underlying evidence.

In my view, Stars and Stripes did not publish sufficient evidence of reporters’ being blacklisted or unknowingly steered by virtue of the files, and in some instances, it omitted mitigating information.

Not only because of what it reported but because of what it left out, it is my view that the Rendon articles provided readers with inadequate bases for a number of the articles’ most serious assertions and fostered impressions that were either inaccurate or unsupported by what was published.

This column was originally published in Stars and Stripes on February 23, 2010.

Fifa insists that journalists bind themselves to a set of conditions if they want accreditation to cover the World Cup jamboree. The conditions also bind the media house, and that, I guess, includes me.

The conditions include some astounding ones, such as a commitment not to bring Fifa into disrepute. This is the clause I may, sadly, have to breach.

Fifa’s Zurich-based media head, Pekka Odriozola, told Gill Moodie, publisher of www.grubstreet.co.za, that the provision is designed to prevent journalists from getting drunk and throwing things on to the pitch. You’d have to be pretty gullible to accept that explanation.

Presumably there are general rules and measures to prevent hooliganism on the stands and these would apply as much to journalists as to soccer louts from England or elsewhere. In the context of conditions attached to media accreditation the clause can be understood only as including critical reportage or commentary.

And that puts Fifa’s media regime in clear conflict with the South African Constitution’s guarantees of media freedom.

There are other conditions, around the use of pictures and video, naming hotels where teams are staying and prohibiting newspaper sales within around 800m of stadiums. Perhaps most astonishing of all is a clause that says Fifa can arbitrarily add and change conditions later — and the news organisation remains bound by them.

Fifa has emphasised that the preamble to the conditions includes a commitment to freedom of expression. Raymond Louw, who is spearheading the South African media’s objections to the accreditation arrangements, says Fifa’s South African and Swiss lawyers have recently written to confirm that all conditions will be read in the light of this initial general commitment.

It may be, as Louw says, that this will reassure editors, but I don’t think it is good enough.

If Fifa really does believe in media freedom, then surely the football body could draft conditions that reflect this commitment throughout and avoid loose formulations that are guaranteed to have a chilling effect on journalists.

It’s hard to avoid the impression that this is exactly the intention. Fifa would like to have the media onside, to prevent reporting that could sour the euphoria that will drive ticket sales. It has shown a deep desire to control every aspect of life, wanting to turn South Africa into nothing less than one huge World Cup theme park.

There’s apparently a pharmacist outside Ellis Park who won’t be able to trade on match days because the display of Panado in his window falls foul of the definition of ambush marketing. Municipalities around the country have passed bylaws that make it illegal for informal traders to sell their onions and tomatoes near stadiums. Fans will be checked to make sure they aren’t wearing T-shirts with illicit logos.

Don’t get me wrong: it will be exciting to play host to the world of football this year and to feel the eyes of the world on our little tip of the continent.
But it is also irritating to find an invited guest walking through the door and immediately taking charge of the household.

The national mood is one of huge enthusiasm for the World Cup anyway. We seem to be willing to accept absolutely any conditions, any infringements of our normal rights, rules and arrangements.

This week it was announced — almost by the way — that the rugby authorities were given special permission to stage an international against France at Newlands in June. The local organising committee “bent” the Fifa rules, which actually say that no other major sporting event may take place in host cities during the World Cup.

It’s like having to ask permission to use your own kitchen.

Last Sunday marked the deadline for applications for media accreditation. For fear of being left out of the show of the year, most journalists will have agreed to Fifa’s rules.

The South African National Editors’ Forum has suggested that editors write letters to Fifa reserving the right to report in the normal, independent way. I hope they do: it is the very minimum that should be done.

We should remember that after that final whistle is blown in July, the Fifa caravan will rumble off to some other lucky fairground. We will be left, not just with a number of top-notch stadiums and a boosted tourism industry, but also with an impact on the institutions of our national life.

We should ensure that we don’t regret accepting a precedent that would harm everybody’s right to be freely informed.

This column was originally published in The Mail & Guardian on February 10, 2010.

As we all know, news ombudsmen and readers editors are used at some of the best newspapers in the world. Washington Post was one of the innovators. Folha de Sao Paolo, Le Monde, The New York Times, The Guardian and many others have followed the example during the last decades.

This kind of ombudsmanship builds on a strong tradition. Every newspaper has its own way of doing it, but the basics are the same. In other words: Here you have a well defined and well tested model that can – and should – be adopted by quality newspapers around the world.

But what about public service broadcasters? Could ombudsmanship be a useful model for them? That’s the question, I will try to answer here.

In the first part I will compare the newspaper-tradition with the issues that are facing us, when it comes to public service stations.

In the second part I will focus on some of the lessons I have learned in practicing ombudsmanship in Denmark during the last five years.

And finally I will try to suggest some ways to go ahead.

I. Newspapers vs broadcasters.

Let me start with newspapers and broadcasters. During the last decades more than 20 public service broadcasters have established a position as news ombudsman. Among them are broadcasters from The United States, from Canada and from around Europe.

But it’s important to emphasize, that the “model” for public service stations is by far as well established as “The Washington Post-model” is for newspapers. There are several special challenges:

First of all: It’s still early days regarding ombudsmanship on public service stations – and many stations work in a special national framework with a history of its own. It’s a highly diversified group.

Secondly: Almost by definition public service stations stands in the center of discussions over political influence and editorial independence. This turmoil is stronger than the one most newspapers face. The license payers often have very strong feelings about the public broadcaster and many politicians and governments are trying hard – in many different ways – to influence the editorial line of the strongest stations. So the environment is often much tougher.

Thirdly: It’s quite another type of media – the task is more complex: The good old printed newspaper is rather easy to overlook every day. A daily newspaper can normally be read in total in an hour or two. A specific place in the newspaper can be used every day for corrections and clarifications and a column once a week or biweekly can underline and explain the role of the ombudsman or the readers editor – or what title the paper have decided to use.

At most broadcasting corporations the output takes many more forms. Take for example my situation at DR – The Danish Broadcasting Corporation. It runs a multimedia operation – including and integrating tv, radio, internet, mobile-services etc. After the digital switch-over last year DR now have 6 tv-channels. The radio-side includes 4 FM-channels and 16 DAB-channels. All together DR employs a staff of more than 3000 – and reaches millions of Danes every day. There are so many channels and so many different news programmes that it’s of course impossible for one person to follow it all. And there are big differences in the audience from channel to channel – and during the day.

In other words: To have an ombudsman is a much more complex operation when you don’t have a well defined product on print every day as the turning point. It’s really a special challenge to develop ways and methods to make the function as listeners and viewers editor visible and effective on a big public service broadcaster.

This takes me to challenge number four:  Most of the public service broadcasters have a bad tradition when it comes to corrections and clarifications. At newspapers – at least the good ones – it’s only natural to try to get things corrected as soon as possible. It’s normally not a big deal to put a few lines of correction in a short one-column-story in next day’s newspaper. And it’s not the end of the world to offer the complainant to give his or her version on the opinion pages.

But on television and radio the attitude is often a very different one. For many tv-editors it is really a big deal to bring a correction in The Nine O’Clock News – or whatever it’s called today.

They come up with all sorts of arguments: It can confuse the viewers. Maybe many of them haven’t even seen the mistake in the first place and it can be difficult to put the correction into the relevant context if it’s a complicated story. And so on and so forth. But all too often these arguments are nothing but a way of avoiding admitting a mistake.

I have argued strongly for a corrections’ and clarifications’ site on the internet – covering all DRs broadcasting and news-sites. It’s now in place – and done in the same tradition as we know from quality newspapers. It does not solve the whole problem – it’s still a big fight to have all important mistakes corrected on the web and to have appropriate corrections published in the relevant tv- and radioprogrammes etc.

But I believe it’s an important battle to fight. And it’s actually getting more and more relevant because of the massive re-use of content across different media-platforms. The same story is often produced in a tv-, a radio- and an internet-version. And the same story is quickly copy-pasted on many other news-sites. And the tv-version is not gone, when it has been broadcasted for the first time. More and more programmes are also available on demand later on: So mistakes and errors can spread extremely fast nowadays – and be repeated again and again. The corrections must be able to compete – and public service broadcasters have a special obligation to take the lead here.

So to sum up from this first part: The ombudsman-model from the quality newspapers should be a great inspiration for public service broadcasters – but it can’t just be copied. The model needs to be developed further to fit the special demands of broadcasting and public service – and the many experiences from different countries have to be discussed and examined.

II. The Danish lessons

This takes me to the Danish part of the story. What have been learned up there?

I am the first news ombudsman at DR – The Danish Broadcasting Corporation – and I have been in office for more than five years. The position was established following a major Danish media-scandal. It started with claims in several newspapers about a documentary produced by DR.  One sequence was heavily manipulated – and only slowly the management realized, that there could be no excuse – whatsoever – for such a manipulation. In the end the director general apologized.

But the case wouldn’t die. It was used heavily by critics of The Danish Broadcasting Corporation – and the board of governors wanted to see some action. They demanded initiatives that could show a firm commitment to high ethical standards. They wanted a more responsive organization.

Part of the outcome of this discussion on confidence-building was a decision to introduce a new position as the listeners and viewers editor. The daily management was against, but the board of governors insisted.

The new editor was given several tasks:

One of many was to head a new appeal system – all complaints should in the first place be answered by the relevant editor and departments around the organization – but as a new initiative complainants should be advised about their possibility of appealing a negative response to the listeners and viewers editor. After investigating the case the listeners and viewers editor should present his or her findings to the director general – who has the final say.

The first couple of years proved to be an uphill battle. There were lots of scepticism among journalist and the majority of the daily management was opposed to having an independent listeners and viewers editor.

The fighting about the construction went on in many different disguises, but we did found some common ground because no one wanted a confrontation with the board of governors. When I first engaged in public debates it became a matter of controversy among senior managers. One of them even tried to stop me from publishing one of my columns – but in the end I got it my way.

I have now been in office for five years and many things have changed fundamentally since the reluctant reception I got in the beginning.

The appeal system is up and running – and so far the DG has agreed in almost all my findings.
A new set of ethical guidelines have been developed in close cooperation with key people from all over the organization. I have detected a number of serious faults in the handling of complaints from listeners and viewers – and consequently tried to improve the system.

Three years ago the Danish radio- and tv-legislation was up for renewal. Among other changes Parliament decided to mention the position as listeners and viewers editor in the law. With a big majority it was made mandatory for DR to have such an editor because it had proved to be a good method of self-control. Furthermore the board of directors was instructed that they should hire the editor – in order to ensure his or her independence. Now I am hired by the board of governors – which gives me a stronger and more independent position.

In my daily work I concentrate on the critical voices and the complaints. I am monitoring the development in the critique – and discuss the problems with the director general and top-editors.
When I join the heated public debates on DR’s programming my focus is whether DR follows its own code of ethics – which also includes a strong obligation to be a critical and independent media.
There is a great paradox here:  My best channel for telling listeners and viewers about my critique is in fact the newspapers and their websites. During the last year I have been quoted in approx. 400 articles. I have only been on air at approx. 15 occasions.

When a case attracts great public attention it also gives me a window of opportunity to raise my voice. But often I refrain from commenting – I have to try hard to concentrate on the most important cases. It’s also essential that every comment in itself demonstrates the independence and the principles you follow. 

It’s much easier when it comes to the web-users. I have a reasonably well-functioning website with lots of information – all my columns and press-releases are to be found there – as well as my findings in the appeal-cases and an assessment of each of the topics, that have attracted the highest numbers of complaints recently. I usually publish approx. 40 of these every year – I call it the complainant’s hit-list – and it often gets media-attention. Some of the issues have to do with technical problems – many regarding the web-services – and complaints about problems with hearing the spoken word. When it comes to the content, the biggest group of complaints is about bias in the news coverage.

I also publish biannual reports – they describe my work rather comprehensively. I find that useful. I am supposed to control others – but no one controls me directly. Consequently I have to show transparency when it comes to my own work.

In my reports I also include concrete proposals for greater openness, stronger ethical guidelines, better ways of dialogue and so on.

Am I busy? Yes indeed! I only have a halftime assistant and I could easily use much more help. But its part of the story, that DR has a special division for customer information. I have a good working relation with them. They handle around 80.000 questions and comments a year – and every day I forward the more banal stuff to them.

The job is interesting and demanding. Sometimes my mailbox overnight gets filled with hundreds of mails. On such an occasion I sometimes long after the old days when the broadcaster was sitting in a fortress when deciding what to air.

But that’s not an option nowadays. We have entered a period with a very intense dialogue on many new platforms. As a public broadcaster DR-programmes are intensely debated around the clock at hundreds of debate-sites and thousand of blogs.

It can sometimes seem overwhelming and difficult to cope with. It is. But there is no place to hide – and no way to avoid a frank and open discussion about all issues of real concern to the public.
I can’t of course be the point of contact for several million listeners and viewers and web-users. But I am their active and visible ambassador – and I am the one they can appeal to, if they believe the editors and the managers have got it wrong in a very important case.

I believe it matters. And that it makes a difference. Of course a system like this will always be up for debate. That part of it. But it has been broadly recognized as a part of making DR a more accountable and a more responsive broadcaster.

It’s also a risky position. You are never better than the quality and relevance of your last comment or your last finding.

III. What’s next – a way ahead?

Now – finally: A few remarks on how to proceed? What can be done to spread this useful model?
One important part of this is ONO – The Organization of News Ombudsmen. ONO is an international network of professionals working for transparency and accountability.

This organization brings together news ombudsmen from around the world. Here we share lessons learned. Here we discuss the fundamental changes in the media-landscape. And here we make plans for promoting the ideas and principles of ombudsmanship.

I guess this is extremely important when it comes to ombudsmen on public service stations. We still need to describe the different model with more clarity. We still need a better overview of how things are being handled around the world. And we need to help and give advice and have an open dialogue with people that are trying to follow our example.

I am in the process of setting up at group of all the news ombudsmen and viewers and listeners editors from public service stations around the world. When ONO meets for its annual meeting in Oxford, England in May this year we will have a special meeting for the public service stations. My hope is that in a year ore two we will be able to promote ombudsmodels for public service stations with the same clarity as we promote the Washington Post-model for newspapers and with a strong record of good examples to learn from.

Public service broadcasters should be transparent and should be held accountable. But how can it be done without loss of editorial independence and integrity? Part of the answer is – in my opinion – the kind of self-control that is the core of ombudsmanship.

I hope all this could prove to be at useful input for you. Whenever you are involved in discussions on promoting ombudsmanship, please feel free to mail me or ONO and inform us on results and problems – and ask for ideas and support from the international network.

Good luck.

This speech was delivered at the Conference on Professional Standards and Self-regulation in Media in Istanbul on Feb. 23, 2010.

“Our main goal is to fight corruption, unfairness, injustice and crimes of humanity as well as moral and political values,” said Yavuz Baydar, who also works at daily Sabah. “Only clear and open press can contribute to an open and clear society. For media, it is vital to be transparent and accountable in order to fight elements in any society that resist transparency,” he added.

Read a full report from Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review

Read the full text of an address to the conference by Jacob Mollerup of The Danish Broadcasting Corp.