|
Media Matters
June 25, 2003
Could an Ombudsman Have Stopped Jayson Blair?
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
The Organization of News Ombudsmen has been debating whether the lack of an "ombuds" at The New York Times was a contributing factor to the newspaper's problems.
It's an interesting question. Some might say that ONO has not a little self-interest in asking and answering the question in a way that would encourage The Times to go out and hire one. But that aside, the consensus among my colleagues seems to be a qualified "yes."
'A Frustrating Place'
Lou Gelfand is the dean of ombudsmen, having filled that role at The Minneapolis Star-Tribune for the past 22 years. His frustration with The New York Times is apparent. He repeatedly tried to get through to an editor to suggest a needed correction:
I used to call 'The New York Times' switchboard to point out errors of fact, suggesting a correction was in order. There was no listed number to call for corrections. The operator would send me to the "national desk," where the response was courteous but unavailing. Eventually, I gave up.
Past managements at the 'Times' have, in their venom for the ombudsman
concept, made it sound like a virus akin to the shredding of the First
Amendment. That was the position it and the major television networks took in the late l970s that led to abandonment of the National News Council. (Minnesota
has had a news council for 30 years without a peep that it has infringed on
the First Amendment.)...
The irony is that the 'Times' otherwise is a billboard for the First Amendment, a lighthouse for thorough, clear, fearless reporting and editing. The day will come when it discards its Achilles' heel and names an ombudsman.
'Prone to... Hubris'
Michael Getler, the ombudsman at The Washington Post, disagrees with the dean. Getler does not go as far as saying that an ombudsman at The Times is necessary. But he notes that while:
...This is not a call for 'The Times' to have an ombudsman. But 'The Times''
account (of what happened) didn't press hard enough in some areas. I have long been an admirer of 'The Times.' It is, in many respects, the best there is. But not in all respects. My view is that the paper is prone to bouts of hubris, an arrogance caused by excessive pride.
'No Panacea... '
Mike Clark is the reader advocate at the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville. He takes another tack:
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.
'That's Not What I Meant...'
My own experience is that listeners are increasingly quick to question NPR's judgment. There have been a few instances where people who were interviewed on NPR objected to the manner in which a reporter described them. Occasionally there have been objections to how an interview was edited.
In these cases, complaints to the ombudsman are always followed up by senior news management and corrective measures taken, either in the form of an on-air apology and/or a posted correction on the NPR Web site.
Another result of these corrections is to impart and stress to the NPR staff why the interviewee has good reason to object to the way in which his or her ideas are presented.
But while the individual reporters or editors may have been spoken to, there still is a need inside NPR to make sure that all editorial staff are aware of the dos-and-don'ts of NPR editorial standards. Some employees tell me there are too few opportunities to discuss these issues with the seriousness and the depth they require.
Reviving the 'Source Check?'
One of the ways some newspapers in the 1990s would guarantee the accuracy of its reporters was to employ a device called a "source check."
The purpose of the "source check" was to get the perspective of the people who had been interviewed by the paper.
An editor would be required to call a sample of people who had been quoted in the newspaper.
The editor would then ask if the person had read the story in which he or she is quoted, and if he or she believed they had been quoted accurately. The editor would also ask if the person felt that the overall story had been contextually accurate.
The use of the "source check" has fallen into disuse by most newspapers. It was time consuming, labor intensive and failed for the most part to reveal a significant or systematic lack of accuracy.
It did have one benefit: readers were impressed and astonished to get a call from an editor. In light of the Jayson Blair scandal, newspapers are looking again to issues around quality control. They feel the need, not only to be accurate, but to be seen to be accurate. NPR might also benefit from this.
Living with Journalistic Ethics
What can a news organization do to guarantee journalistic integrity and honesty? Probably not one single thing, as long as journalists share some of the same qualities as the rest of humanity.
But journalistic organizations should be held to a high standard of truth and accountability. It is not enough to say we're ethical; we have to practice it too.
Many journalistic organizations that claim to serve the citizenry know that the public instinctively understands the difference between public relations and true accountability.
An ombudsman is only one of a number of things a paper or a broadcaster can do to insure accountability. But an ombudsman can't be seen as the booster shot guaranteed to keep a journalistic organization free of the infections of hubris, arrogance and other journalistic shortcomings.
Listeners may contact me at 202-513-3246 or at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
