Newspaper Ombudsmen Obsolete says Advertising Age

The newspaper ombudsman is "more or less obsolete", says Advertising Age.

Five reasons are listed:
1. Readers are doing it for themselves, through blogs and increased correspondence.
2. Media watchdog sites are larger and quicker.
3. Journalists and editors are reacting quicker to added inputs and correctives.
4. Ombudsmen are boring, “given that newspaper management invariably expects ombudsfolk to be sober, seasoned, borderline-elderly paternal/maternal types. That sort of pedantic sensibility is just dated and tone-deaf -- and at odds with how newspapers should be engaging with their newly empowered readers.”
5. The money’s better spent elsewhere, on news reporting.

I’ve been highly critical of ombudsmen, for being management apologists and for being overly obtuse to their paper’s faults. The source of my deepest concern has been what a valuable opportunity is missed in not being true to the ombudsman’s purpose, to be a reader’s representative.

As I noted here, “In 2001, there were 44 U.S. members of the ombudsman organization. In 2008, there are 36.”

The management at newspapers has noticed what a waste ombudsmen have become, although unfortunately the resources are not being re-routed into better news coverage as they have drastically cut journalist head-count.

If ombudsmen don’t want to become a passing footnote, they’d best become something they’re not now, true reader representatives, bucking the head-office instead of making excuses for it, in the process becoming valued reads. The final obit isn't ready, "more or less," but the time is drawing nigh.