Opinion - News Analysis   

Pitfalls, barriers and suspicions

In a survey of members of the Organisation of News Ombudsmen (ONO) more than 20 years ago, James Ettema and Theodore Glasser identified ambiguity in the roles and perceptions of media ombudsmen — they found a consistent emphasis on public relations activities (sensitising reporters and editors to readers’ concerns) as well as persuasive activities (changing the way readers see the paper). The same patterns were apparent in 2007. Peter McEvoy (ABC Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford), who surveyed ONO members last year, found almost universal acceptance of public relations activities, but a narrower commitment to the ombudsman’s role as a critic and enforcer of standards. McEvoy presented his report at the ONO annual conference in Stockholm (May 28-31, 2008), and some parts of it were covered in my last column (July 21, 2008).

McEvoy’s conclusion is that ombudsmen are very conscious of the difficulties of their relationship with the organisation. Their general view is that at the very least their work maintains standards of accuracy. At best, it improves standards and makes readers and journalists think of ethics.

* * * 

Another study presented at the ONO conference was by Esben Orberg, Head of Communications of the Danish Union of Journalists. It deals with pitfalls and barriers ombudsmen have faced, and is based on interviews with ombudsmen and editors in Denmark and the U.K. Orberg wonders why, if it is such a good idea, “there are less than 100 news ombudsmen in the world and only two and a half in Denmark.”

The upside of news ombudsmen, Orberg says, is that editorial quality improves when there is systematic and constant monitoring. Most journalists come to appreciate the work because it gives them the opportunity to have mistakes corrected, and to a certain degree protects them from angry complainants. Research in the U.S. shows that readers’ trust improves when newspapers are prepared to admit mistakes and try to explain them. Ombudsmen improve the dialogue and interaction with readers and ease the burden on editors who do not have to deal with all complaints.

Not all editors concur with that view. Some believe the ombudsman is an unnecessary presence as he or she does not have, and should not have, any power to instruct journalists on what to do. They hold that the law, the press council, and regular interactions with readers will provide the necessary checks.

Also, news ombudsmen will constantly be under suspicion, as I very well know, of being an extension of editorial management to calm critics and the cantankerous — in effect, a PR exercise. This is more so when the ombudsman’s terms of contract do not guarantee independence — in my case, this is ensured by the terms of reference under which I work.

Several U.S. media organisations have employed news ombudsmen to avoid being dragged to court or press councils, and so the person becomes a mediator. This is not so in Europe, where the ombudsman “helps complainants to take a deep breath and put things into perspective.”

* * * 

While academic researchers appreciate their role, news ombudsmen find it difficult to gain acceptance from journalists and make an impact on news culture (especially when their values differ widely, as I find.). Even though it is customary for ombudsmen not to mention the names of journalists involved, when mistakes are corrected, those responsible see it as a spanking in public. (I have been told of such resentment, especially when we repeat a correction and point out that the same point was made earlier. Some feel we rub it in, which is not true.)

High visibility and widespread awareness of the news ombudsmen’s existence contribute to their success. (The two factors are present in my case, but I do not know the result.) “A new populist movement against the media is gathering strength helped along by new media platforms such as blogs,” says Stephen Ross-Mohl, Media Professor at the University of Lugano (Switzerland). “The way media organisations can protect themselves against this tendency is by institutionalising media criticism,” he adds.

Ombudsmen function in organisations that are behaving reasonably well. “It is the tabloid press that has the greatest need for it … But tabloids would be completely undermined by a strong news ombudsman,” says Russ-Mohl.

* * * 

A problem ombudsmen face is a conflict of loyalty between users and journalists (the first duty, according to me, is to the readers). The institution can be counter-productive if users feel they have been engaged in pseudo-dialogue. Such disappointment can lead to strong reactions. My experience is that readers stop contact when they find the readers’ editor ineffective in redressing their real or perceived grievances.

So I agree fully with Orberg’s conclusion that news ombudsmen struggle on a daily basis to keep the focus on the interests of readers. He affirms: “The personal integrity must be so strong that the news ombudsman can release himself or herself from the need to be loyal to the employer … The news ombudsman must be a person who is not afraid to risk his or her reputation and career to meet the needs of the reader.”

As McEvoy points out in his study, ombudsmen face competing and contradicting demands. They are responsible not only to the organisation that appoints them, but also to some broader public and to a set of principles the organisation claims to uphold. The challenge is to use the available space to raise the quality of journalism and give readers a voice. “A lonely job perhaps, but it’s worth doing well,” McEvoy concludes.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Gilani’s positive response
Replacing tinderbox coaches
Oil revenues: bonanza for Russia
Pitfalls, barriers and suspicions
The said, and the unsaid
“There’s no peace for us to keep”
India-Pakistan ties
Ahmedabad blasts
Great loss

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu