The Ombudsman Hoax

Michelle Malkin is too kind when she says, “The NYTimes Ombudsman is totally worthless.” Most of them are usually worthless.

I haven’t investigated every one. Surely there may be a few who reasonably consistently act as true readers’ representatives, who track down answers within their newspapers to the uncomfortable questions of why some matters are covered and others not, especially when significant matters, whether the full facts are presented, whether assertions are professionally substantiated, and whether the reporter’s opinions are kept separate from the facts.

The leading ombudsmen that I have investigated fail to meet the test of their own so-called professional organization’s standards: the former ombudsman of the New York Times, Daniel Okrent (go to October 26 at the link), the ombudsman of the San Diego Union Tribune, Gina Lubrano, who is also the Executive Secretary of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, and the ombudsman of the Guardian, Ian Mayes, who is also the President of the Organization of News Ombudsmen. Scott Johnson at Powerline has referred to the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s ombudsman, Kate Parry, as “reporter’s enabler” for failing to confront repeated documented falsity from a Star Tribune columnist. The anonymous media insider at Mediacrity, calls the New York Times ombudsman Barney Calame an “empty suit” and wonders whether ombudsmen are just “management shills.”

Yes, from time to time these newsroom mice make a peep-like imitation of a roar, but their usual meekness and excuses for their newspapers make even their occasional fits almost laughable. Management knows they have house eunuchs.

The same people who call for independent investigators at the suspicion of a dropped dime in a hat by a lobbyist and who call for the CEO’s of giant corporations to go to jail for not knowing every detail that may be sordid in their organization, are not heard calling for truly independent, and courageous, fact and journalism-standards auditors of the “fourth estate.”

Newspapers are businesses, apparently not too well run at meeting their consumers’ needs as witness their sharp fall in readership and stock-value. They waste the remaining readers’ time to read their ombudspuppies’ columns about punctuation while ignoring the crimes on their front and opinion pages of omission and commission, and waste their stockholder’s investments on most ombudsmens’ salaries. This is a gross violation of responsible corporate conduct, to not uphold newspapers' promise of professionalism in return for the deference they demand and are given.