Letters to the Editor
-
you know it makes sense
NPR, Pacifica, CNN, Reuters, Fox and all the others have long since stopped pretending they DON'T have a clear bias and agenda. So listening to people complain about that is rather fruitless, no? Institutions like CAMERA didn't spring full blown from some Evil Zionist's Head, much as the readership here would love to believe that. CAMERA and others of that ilk were created to respond to that clear bias. And make no mistake, bias exists. It absolutely exists.
I wouldn't write to the Guardian angrily because it didn't take the same PoV as the London Times. Would you? It would be silly to expect the NY Times to suddenly stop adopting the position of the miserable brown peoples the world over, oppressed by some nameless faceless force, below the fold page one. I'm pretty sure that Fox is not going to run a whole new program about the problems with being African American Lesbians in the inner city. Complaining that they don't is kind of stupid.
So why should they bother to pretend that the ombudsman has a real role or that it changes anything? The complaint department is as it's always been. Your call is very important to us, please continue to hold. No sir/maam there's nothing I can do about that. Our research indicates that one person can never make a difference. Thank you for your email.
-
Journalism's Last Line of Defense?
Jeffrey--Grover Norquist vs. Terry Gross: you didn't exactly cover yourself with glory during that episode. In fact, that marked the point when I pulled the plug on further contributions to NPR.
-
Can someone explain how this is supposed to work?
The organization hires someone and pays their salary to make some nominal amount of noise. If the person makes too much noise they are released.
Sounds like nothing more than PR to me.
An ombudsman that constantly uncovers and documents major flaws is an ombudsman that is fired rather quickly. (And most likely never hired in the first place) There is a fundamental conflict of interest in the organization hiring a critic: they can't afford for that critic to be too critical.
-
A new position is needed. Newsroom editors need an advocate, not the public.
The ombudsman's roll as the reader's advocate is no longer needed. A new position should be created. We'll call them 'sprutluder' (Swedish for media representative.) We, the people, no longer feel powerless and in need of a voice within the newsroom. If the newsroom gets it wrong, we'll let them know it. Then they can enlist the help of their 'sprutluder' to advocate on their behalf to an ever hostile and knowledgeable reading public.
-
Maybe They Can Make Templeton the New Ombudsman. [Wire Joke]
The Baltimore Sun losing its ombudsman sounds like a story straight out of "The Wire" this season. A good ombudsman seems crucial to me if you're going to run a credible newspaper. Sad thing is, it looks like many newspapers are caring less and less if they're actually credible, as long as they can ignore, silence, or shut out their critics. Think of the mainstream media these days as kids with their fingers stuck in their ears screaming "La,La,La, I can't heeeeeear you!"
By the way, I can't help but ask, but does Salon have an ombudsman?
Of course, the only thing worse than no ombudsman is a bad ombudsman. Exhibit A: Deborah Howell over at the sad old Washington Post. There's probably not a finer(?) example in journalism of a more biased, corporate excuse-maker in a role that seems way over her head. For instance, remember Howell on (among other things) the Jack Abramoff scandal? Yikes.
-
Ombudsmen are an indication of news accuracy
If a media organization doesn't want an ombudsman then I think that's a fair indication the paper is likely to be biased in its reporting.
There are plenty of news organizations that adopt openly partisan positions and don't really pretend otherwise, and that's why many people watch/read them - to get views that reflect their own. You wouldn't expect these organizations to employ an ombudsman.
But if a newspaper or TV company purports to be fair and balanced then it must be prepared to justify its reporting and take on board criticism of it. And that's where an ombudsman comes in.
So if you genuinely want a reasonably accurate and unbiased take on what's going on in the world, then I think you're more likely look find it in a news organization that is prepared to back its own reporting by employing an ombudsman.
-
The irony...
...of reading this article on Salon.com is staggering.
From the introduction of Broadsheet ("the Pink Ghetto"), to the return of the hated Camille Paglia, to the introduction of video blog posts without captioning or transcripts for deaf readers, to the unveiling of the despised comic strip Kansan O'Flaherty, Salon's record of responding to loud reader complaints with a wall of silence is legendary.
If there is "resistance in the online community" to having an open dialog with readers, we're at Ground Zero.
-
How is a blog a substitute for an ombudsman?
I don't think a blog, or reader comments, is interchangable with an ombudsman. One is just a place for readers to make comments with no assurance, and often no hope, of an actual response. The other is a person with the power to make inquiries and replies and occasionally take action.
I'd argue blogs and comments can be used to prevent reader feedback, creating the illusion of interactivity when in reality it's just directing them to a side room to talk amongst themselves. The paper is free to ignore them entirely as valid complaints can be hidden in the general noise of any comment thread.
When someone has to make the effort of calling or writing and someone has to make the effort of listening or reading, actual information might be exchanged.
I also dispute the idea ombudsmen our outdated. It seems to me a reader advocate is highly current, the next logical step up in interactivity. If people are going to be invited to interact, shouldn't there be a person assigned to making use of that interactivity?
Lord knows, Salon could use an ombudsman - allowing blog responses by writers and editors who have ego invested in their decisions is not enough. They need someone who stands slightly apart and can assess common complaints like the Salon's rumored bias for Hillary or the rationale behind that Kansas comic.
It's amazing what a coherent "official" response does for reader satisfaction, even if they don't agree with it. Just look at Glenn Greenwald - who has a distinct following from the rest of the site. His strong reputation is in part because he does take the time to read the comments and address concerns.
So yes, ombudsmen is the most modern of devices - too bad most papers can be bothered to update.