Omsbudsmen, or Omsbudsbox?

[Ed. Note: Bruce Kesler, a long-time correspondent, will contribute posts from time to time. After college, Bruce served as a USMC Sergeant in Vietnam and founded Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace in 1971, which John O'Neill joined, reports Bruce, "to deflate John Kerry." Bruce has worked at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and as an executive for Fortune 100 corporations. For the past 15 years, he has owned an employee benefits consulting company. His work has appeared in the New York Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, and FrontPage Magazine, among other outlets, and he writes a regular column for the Augusta (Va.) Free Press. He lives in Encinitas, California.]

One of the outcomes of the 1960’s protests was concern about the role of citizens in democracies. Especially with regard to large institutions, many advocated creation of means for citizens to air their views and those views to be given respectful treatment.

In what some called Ombudsmania, there was a flowering of ombudsmen at major American newspapers. University of Oklahoma political science professor Larry Hill, who studied ombudsmen for over 35-years, reviews the difficulty of defining the term and the movement. (See his address to the 1997 American Bar Association’s Spring Meeting.)

There is an Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) comprised of about 100 members from the leading media all over the world, including the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, NPR, L.A. Times, Atlanta Journal & Constitution, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, The Oregonian, The Tennessean, Houston Chronicle, the Australian, Canadian, Danish and Finnish Broadcasting Corporations, Le Monde, and Maariv.

Letting them define themselves, a column by ONO member Paul Moore, the Baltimore Sun’s Public Editor (one of the several monikers ombudsmen use), was recommended to me by one of ONO’s officers, Gina Lubrano, Readers Representative of the San Diego Union-Tribune. Moore wrote that “my efforts must be based on what best serves the readers, not on what best serves the interests of the institution.”

Another of the articles recommended by ONO to understand news ombudsmen is from David Cox, as president and CEO of Cowles Media and chairman of the Newspaper Association of America. Cox asks, “Are we so ‘different’ to be above designating a senior person to track down answers for unhappy readers and publishing the results? [Ombudsmen] provide a readily accessible public face and voice to whom the public can turn.”

Chuck Stone, professor at the University of North Carolina’s School of Journalism, and for several months ombudsman at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in a 1998 speech appearing at the ONO site, expresses the role of the ombudsman as “the responsibility to help newspapers achieve five goals.”

First, “making newspapers necessary…as the most dependable and comprehensive dispenser of information.” Second, “to always be exciting” responsibly about the news without “scatology, pornography or sex-obsessed reporting.” Third, to “help newspapers achieve [a] superiority of information….governed by the highest credibility that is made possible by our reliance on the acronym, FEAT – fair, evenhanded, accurate and thorough.” Fourth, “Ombudsmen are the only professionals on the newspaper whose sole responsibility differentiates the new media – the Internet, Online, etc. – from the old media. In a sense, ombudsmen are custodians of accountability.” Fifth, “Ombudsmen can be critical to maintaining and even enhancing a newspaper’s credibility….I cannot recall any period when readers held newspapers in such low esteem.”

Twice before in the past year, I’ve written extensive analyses of the inadequate performance of two leading ombudsmen at meeting the self-described goals and responsibilities of ombudsmen. Both appeared at the wonderfully named blog The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid by SmartMoney columnist Don Luskin, who had his own running exposes of the New York Times’ Daniel Okrent. My piece about Okrent appeared October 26, 2004, and about the ONO’s Executive Secretary and ombudsman at the San Diego Union-Tribune, Gina Lubrano, on June 9, 2005.

One of Luskin’s readers comment about my latter piece was titled, “The Bottomless OmbudsBox”: “These various ombudsmen more and more remind me of that old cartoon in which the ‘suggestion box’ has no bottom and is hung over a paper shredder or waste can. There appears to be no real connection between the input and the decision makers. And they wonder why readership is falling. Well, actually, they don’t. It’s obviously because the potential readers are too stupid to understand reality and what newspapers really should be doing.”

Another knowledgeable critic of ombudsman performance (I don’t have permission to mention his name) asked why I suggested that ombudsmen live up to their ONO site “commandment” to respond to writers, at least with an autoresponder to acknowledge receipt of the comment or inquiry. “It just creates the false impression that you are being responded to.”

My simple response to both is similar to what I’d respond to any critic of what should be a good institution: It’s worth it to critique ombudsmen to bring out this institution’s better promise and that of their newspapers. Newspapers may be fading, but they are still and will remain one of the most important sources of information and commentary that Americans and other free countries have.

This brings us to the latest leading ombudsman whose performance disappoints at meeting ombudsmen’s own standards. Ian Mayes, the ONO president, is ombudsman of the London Guardian. He writes in the President’s Message about ONO:

“Membership of ONO is a clear statement of a commitment to getting it right, and a readiness to correct it when we get it wrong….more and more media organizations have come to see the appointment of an ombudsman as a possible answer to the loss of credibility they have been experiencing or as a kind of insurance against it….We believe in the value of what we are doing in trying to encourage transparency and accountability in the news media.”

During July, it came to light that the Guardian employed as a “trainee journalist” Mr. Dilpazier Aslam, a member of a group called Hizb ut-Tahrir that is described by Britain’s Home Office as “anti-semitic, anti-Western and homophobic,” and even the Guardian called it last November “Britain’s most radical Islamic group.” Although not banned by Britain’s (pre 7/7) lax laws, Hizb ut-Tahir is outlawed in many other European and Muslim countries, including Pakistan who pled with Britain to ban it after it was charged in plotting to assassinate President Musharraf. “Trainee journalist” Aslam was used by the Guardian to cover the 7/7 London terror bombings and a court case involving women wearing head-to-toes Islamic clothes.

The Europe Correspondent for the Times of London wrote on August 1 about this matter, and others related, that, “Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support…this time it is [by] left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union – useful idiots.”

An American blogger living in England, Scott Burgess, exposed Aslam’s membership in Hizb ut-Tahir. (Burgess’s Daily Ablotion on July 29 has convenient summary and links.) Another British blog, leftist Harry’s Place, was helpful to Burgess’ efforts, as was rightist British blog USS Neverdock of July 30 for example provides useful links). Other British newspapers like the Sun and the Independent, tasting blood, joined in.

Basically, after blowing Burgess off, the Guardian succumbed to increasing criticism from blogs and other British periodicals, and after Aslam declined the option of resigning from Hizb ut-Tahir, Aslam was allowed to “resign.” A week later, the Guardian’s executive editor for news, Albert Scardino, resigned. Scardino was reported as hiring Aslam. Now, according to anonymous “media sources” (apparently Britain’s media has the same problem as the U.S. media in allowing self-serving anonymity), Scardino “was very loosely responsible.” Although he and the paper claimed his resignation as for conveniently not previously announced other reasons, investigative blogger Burgess reported in his July 29 post that his source at the Guardian said Scardino’s position had become “untenable” due to the split between Aslam supporters and opponents.

On this side of the Atlantic, the online magazine blog Tech Central Station provides an extended summary.

The Times of London reports the known facts about Albert Scardino’s resignation, the polite evasion by the Guardian’s editor, and the failure of Aslam to get support from England’s National Union of Journalists. (I wish America’s Newspaper Guild’s president Linda Foley’s slanders against the U.S. and its military had come up for a Guild vote. Here is a summary of the Foley case.)

While all this was going on at the Guardian, obviously a story and matter of fundamental importance to the Guardian, its readers, and Britain’s press, where was the Guardian’s ombudsman, Ian Mayes, also the president of the international Organization of News Ombudsmen? As blogger Burgess reported in his July 29 post, the Guardian’s editor conceded “that the Aslam affair and its internal repercussions constitute a significant crisis for the paper.”

Surely, we might reasonably expect the Guardian’s ombudsman, leader of ombudsmen around the world, to uphold, in his words, “the value of what we are doing in trying to encourage transparency and accountability in the news media.”

I corresponded with Ian Mayes to clarify his role in the matter. Mr. Mayes did help clarify some questions, but left others. What remains is somewhat disappointing regarding the true efficacy of ombudsmen.

Mayes’ full-length, prominently on the Comments page, weekly July 16 column discussed the propriety of the Guardian’s use of photos of an injured passenger and “presumedly dead” victims of the 7/7 terror bombings in London. Mayes’ July 23 column discussed the change in type font at the Guardian. Mayes’ July 30 column discusses split infinitives and other matters of “how to use the English language.”.

The only comment on the Aslam matter by Mayes was a brief paragraph on July 22 in the less prominent “corrections and clarifications” column. In this paragraph, as Mayes reply to me repeats, Mayes says that “Mr. Aslam’s affiliation should have been made clear at the time his comment piece was published.” The July 22 comment by Mayes concludes with reference to, “A Statement by the Guardian appears elsewhere in the paper, with a fuller account on the Guardian website.”

The Guardian search engine links to three related pieces. The bylined “Dilpazier Aslam leaves Guardian” is subtitled “Background to the story Aslam targeted by bloggers”. This piece announces Aslam’s termination, quoting the Guardian’s statement, “The Guardian now believes continuing membership of the organisation [Hizb ut-Tahrir] to be incompatible with his continued employment by the company.” The reader is referred to Mayes’ paragraph in the “corrections” column.

The second piece, “by a staff reporter”, is titled “Aslam targeted by bloggers”, circularly subtitled to the above “Background to the story Dilpazier Aslam leaves Guardian.” This 21 paragraph piece starts off with, “Rightwing bloggers from the US…were behind the targeting last week of a trainee Guardian journalist who wrote a comment piece which they did not care for about the London bombings.” It continues, “Within hours, Dilpazier Aslam was being accused on the internet of ‘violence’ and belonging to a ‘terrorist organisation’ – both completely untrue charges.” The rest of the piece selectively quotes extremists’ statements, apparently to buttress the anonymous Guardian reporter’s slant that criticism of the Guardian and Aslam was “obsessively personalized attacks.” Only briefly in one paragraph does this reporter mention there are, “more legitimite questions as to whether a newspaper should employ a reporter who belongs to a controversial political group…”

The third piece, subtitled “The Guardian today issued this briefing,” discusses the Guardian’s efforts to increase ethnic, specifically Muslim, diversity on its staff. It goes on to say that Hizb ut-Tahrir is legal, although criticized, in England but banned in Russia, Germany and Holland without stating their conclusion it is a terrorist organization. The piece goes on to say, “Subsequent to joining the Guardian, Aslam made no secret of his membership of this political party, drawing it to the attention of several colleagues and some senior editors.” Nonetheless, “On July 12…Aslam was asked to write a piece about 7/7 for the comment page” in which he wrote: “We rock the boat: today’s Muslims aren’t prepared to ignore injustice.” This Guardian explanation continues that the paper’s Comment editor – seemingly out of the loop of “some senior editors”, was not aware of Aslam’s Hizb ut-Tahrir membership, nor until protests occurred was Guardian management aware that this organization advocated the killing of Jews “wherever you find them.” The “matter was subsequently treated under this paper’s grievance and disciplinary procedure,” Aslam refusing to resign or repudiate Hizb ut-Tahrir’s or its material, so he was terminated.

At the very least, the Guardian’s staff appears split on the Aslam matter, as blogger Burgess reported. Ombudsman Mayes briefly comes down on the side of management, without further comment about that split within the Guardian’s reporting, about the attack on the primary bloggers’ actually correct reporting, or about what improved standards of hiring and reporting are called for.

These issues might have occurred to Mr. Mayes as important to the Guardian’s readers and others’ faith in the Guardian’s and media’s “transparency and accountability”, as Mr. Mayes evinces this is the most important role ombudsmen can further.

I asked Mr. Mayes whether “you have a contract regarding your independence with the Guardian?” A fair question, as in the afore referenced President’s Message by Ian Mayes to the Organization of News Ombudsmen, he says, “The most dedicated [owners, publishers and editors] to this form of self-regulation convey their commitment by ensuring the independence of their ombudsmen through contracts that guarantee independence.” Mayes continues, “The greater and better protected the ombudsman’s independence, the greater the potential increase in trust” by the public.

I also asked Mr. Mayes whether he had “written about the resignation of Mr. Scardino…[or] termination of Mr. Aslam?” and “for what reason(s) yes or no?” Mr. Mayes reply to me said his “independence is guaranteed’ by the Guardian’s owners, continuing, “the editor cannot veto subjects I want to write about or interfere with what I have written. My brief is to deal with complaints about or issues arising from the Guardian’s journalism. The disciplinary or personnel matters you refer to are outside that brief.”

So, unfortunately Mr. Mayes does not appear to have a contract protecting his employment if his decision is to write about or with a view contrary to management’s wishes, or critical of management, rubs management the wrong way. He may sue for “just cause”, but that is a post-termination contentious defense argument not a guarantee. This conditional independence is common among ombudsmen. Ombudsmen’s integrity and courage and the honor of the paper’s management are actually all there is to their independence to truly serve the public or to build or repair newspapers’ credibility, especially in some of the most important instances.

Mr. Mayes’ words, in this line, place the analysis of the Guardian’s journalism in the matters of Aslam’s or Scardino’s behavior outside his ombudsman’s purview, just commenting “Mr. Aslam’s affiliation should have been made clear at the time his comment piece was published,” and referring to the management’s view.

One may reasonably conclude several things from the above. First, if not for the uproar from those outside the Guardian, led by bloggers the Guardian reporter derides, it would likely not have become aware or taken action about Aslam’s membership in a violence-espousing extremist organization. Second, there does appear to be an obvious split personality among the Guardian’s staff. Third, on a public issue of fundamental relevance to the credibility and journalism procedures of the Guardian, matters definitely within its ombudsman’s legitimate purview, readers are lacking Mr. Mayes’ independent examination of what, by ombudsmen’s own goals, the public needs and deserves.

As before, in my examination of the performance of the New York Times’ Daniel Okrent and the San Diego Union-Tribune’s Gina Lubrano (also the Executive Secretary of the Organization of News Ombudsmen), the ONO’s president and ombudsman of the London Guardian, Ian Mayes, comes up short of the ombudsmen’s own self-definition and standards. That doesn’t make the institution of ombudsmen worthless, but of enough diminished worth to not fulfill its promise of halting the decline or restoring newspaper credibility. It seems like another nice 1960’s “reform” of marginal impact on the fundamental problems. Too bad.