|
Media Matters
September 25, 2003
Do Ombudsmen Make a Difference?
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
As a matter of routine, the news ombudsmen and women who work for newspapers and broadcasters around the world deal with the minutiae of journalism: the errors and corrections, the allegations and insinuations, the complaints and (less often) the kudos.
We also belong to a group called "ONO," the Organization of News Ombudsmen, (an occasionally appropriate acronym for what we do... ). When we aren't answering listeners, readers and viewers concerns, we consult and commiserate with each other via e-mail and conference calls to share our dilemmas and discuss common concerns.
But once a year, the members of ONO get together.
Three Days in Istanbul
Last week, ONO members met in Istanbul to look at the macro view: The state of contemporary journalism and the value of ombudsman-ship to our listeners, viewers and readers. We also heard from newspaper editors, broadcast executives and academics about whether our work is useful and why.
The range of journalistic and geographic representation was impressive. With more than 85 members, about 40 were able to come to the meeting. Not quite a quorum, but a reasonable cross-section. Although about half the membership is from the United States, only six Americans ombudsmen and women were able to attend.
Most were Europeans, along with new members from South America, Australia, Turkey and Israel.
Whither U.S. Journalism?
The tone of the meeting was initially one of strong but collegial questioning about the state of American journalism leading up to and into the war in Iraq. Some of the accusations from our colleagues about American journalism were tough and occasionally uncomfortable.
American journalism is perceived by many of our European colleagues as entirely too accepting of the policies of the administration. The repeated impression is that American journalism has succumbed in a post-9/11 environment to patriotic appeals and as a result, has abandoned its role as skeptical watchdog of democracy.
Unlike the European media, American journalism (we were told) appeared not to engage the Bush administration in challenging its assertions about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. As one journalist told us, the debate in America never reached "critical mass" as it did in the United Kingdom, for example, where the media led a concerted effort to question the assumptions of the Blair government and had a strong influence on public opinion and anti-war sentiment.
American media, we were told, have done a poor job in continuing the debate about the nature of a post-war Iraq or the future role of the United States in the Muslim world.
American vs Non-American Journalism
In my opinion, that view is not entirely accurate.
While it has been reported in the United States that there is a difference between U.S. and non-U.S. reporting on this issue, the differences were enormously apparent in Istanbul to all of us who came from American news organizations. Outside the United States, the media seem to have taken on a strongly activist role in molding public opinion.
But in the United States, can journalism ever act as the skeptical watchdog of democracy without descending into political partisanship? That is still an important issue that American journalism seems hesitant to grapple with, fearing accusations of liberal bias.
At the same time, the anti-globalization mood that is part of European journalism especially has found a voice. A generation ago it was openly anti-American and anti-nuclear weapons. Now it is openly anti-Bush, anti-war and anti-Israel.
Finally, the impression of American journalism overseas seems to have been highly influenced by the tone of cable television, talk radio and some of the Murdoch-owned tabloids. Missing in this impression is the solid work of The New York Times (sadly eclipsed by the Jayson Blair scandal), The Washington Post and other U.S. newspapers along with much of NPR's solid reporting, both at home and abroad.
To many of us who come from American media organizations, the criticisms appear to be a huge shift since we last met more than a year ago. At that time, the media overseas still had enormous sympathy for what America had gone through on 9/11. The absence of that tone in Istanbul was palpable.
Issues for All Ombudsmen
But over the three days of the conference, a number of difficult dilemmas came forward for useful discussion:
Journalism at war. Although the British fought alongside the Americans in Iraq, the British press became an increasingly vocal part of the opposition to the war. The reasons for this are complex. But this was partly because, in my opinion, much of the British press has become openly hostile to the Bush administration. Often forgotten is how the British media supported the war against the IRA in the '70s and '80s and went along with the press restrictions imposed on the media by the Thatcher government during the Falklands War. The French press during the war in Algeria in the '50s and '60s was similarly supine, with some notable exceptions.
Journalism under scrutiny. The respected Parisian daily Le Monde became the subject of a news story when the paper's editors were accused of censoring and not editing its own columnists. Le Monde decided to investigate its own editorial practices in a highly public series of articles and an investigation by the paper's own mediateur, (ombudsman) Robert Solé.
Journalistic credibility. All newspapers and broadcasters (especially public broadcasters) are coming under new and elevated levels of skepticism. Journalistic organizations are seeking ways in which the public trust (without which journalism is just that stuff that separates the ads) can grow or in some cases, be restored.
Thus the sense that ombudsman-ship is an idea whose time has truly arrived.
Alan Rusbridger, the editor of London's Guardian spoke to the conference. He wrote in the newspaper about the role of news ombudsmen after attending a few of the Istanbul sessions.
The role of an ombudsman (the Guardian was represented by its readers' editor) is one response to the general global crisis of trust in the media. More and more newspapers and broadcasters are appointing independent figures who can respond to readers' or viewers' concerns and correct or clarify matters. The New York Times -- still reeling from its own earthquake -- has recently appointed a standards editor as well as a public editor.
The participants in the Istanbul gathering -- who have more contact with readers in a week than most editors in a year -- were passionate about the job. They, better than anyone, know about the imperfect nature of journalism. They have an evangelical zeal about their role -- they might even call it a civic
duty -- in putting things right as quickly and as painlessly as possible.
Next Steps
Where does ONO go from here? It depends on the willingness of other publishers and broadcasters to acknowledge that there is a problem of credibility. NPR is still (to its credit) the only American broadcaster that sees some value in the role of an ombudsman.
But acting on behalf of the listeners, readers and viewers becomes a dubious battle if the aim of journalism itself is anything less than the quest for scrupulous accuracy and a passionate desire to tell the whole story.
Listeners can contact me at 202-513-3245 or by email at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
