Representing Readers

Editor & Publisher picks up on a trend that's an outgrowth of the overall cutbacks in newspapers: newsroom ombudsmen (and women) are a vanishing breed. At least 10 ombudsmen have lost their jobs in the past year to buyouts or layoffs at U.S. newspapers, leaving just 27 of the readers' representatives in place, according to the Organization of News Ombudsmen (which also has international members, but at this rate may have trouble reaching a quorum at its next convention).

As Gina Lubrano, executive secretary of the organization, points out to E&P, the readers' representative position has been an easy target for cost-cutters for years. So it's probably not surprising that we're seeing a bunch of ombudsmen cuts amid the current avalanche of newspaper cutbacks.

But I'd argue that these days, the ombudsman–like many things in the newspaper business–is something of an anachronism, anyway. It's another thing that technology has rendered essentially irrelevant. There are just so many other ways for readers to talk back to newspapers these days.

The first newspaper ombudsman position was created more than 40 years ago, at the Louisville Courier-Journal and Louisville Times. It made sense: Newspapers were basically one-way communications media, with very little opportunity for readers to reply or be heard. Aside from letters to the editor (generally published only a handful at a time) or angry calls to editors and news desks (and anybody who's ever worked in a newsroom knows how those usually were dealt with), there weren't a lot of ways for readers to talk back to the press. 

So the ombudsman–or public editor, or readers' representative–position was created to give readers more of a voice. The idea was that the ombudsman would act as a readers' advocate, do some internal critiquing, and generally hold newspapers more accountable to their readers for what they published. Ultimately, there were dozens at papers around the country (and around the world). 

Again, that was how it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago, when newspapers primarily lectured their audiences. Now, things are very different. There are many ways to talk back to newspapers these days: Most newspapers allow comments on stories (well, except those that set them up badly, get scared and foolishly turn them off); many good editors and reporters have blogs and or chats and interact regularly with their audiences; and there are many forums for press coverage and criticism that hold journalists responsible for what they write.

The result is that the newspaper ombudsman looks a bit like a relic from an earlier time. In many ways, we're all ombudsmen now: savvier readers, with multiple ways to talk back to the press. Newspapers are being held far more accountable, and that's a good thing. 

The notion of a newspaper ombudsman to provide a voice for readers was a necessary but transitional device. Rest in peace, but as many have pointed out, good journalism is now a conversation rather than a lecture.

Comments

[Angela Connor]

What we have now Mark, are community managers. I am the managing editor of an online community and feel as though I represent our users in a big way. I am connected to the pulse of the community as the person who likely interacts with more of our readers/viewers/users than anyone else within my news organization. So many traditional news organizations are resisting social media, but that's where we can find many of our customers and people dedicated to the brand. The ombudsman position could have been reworked because the people in those roles already possess many of the skills needed to be an effective community manager. Yes, there would be a learning curve and the need for a mentality-shift. Again, the print industry continues to miss opportunities.(Sigh...)