The Importance of Ombudsmen

In addition to having a comprehensive (and enforceable) code of ethics and strong institutional knowledge and oversight, major media outlets benefit tremendously by having an Ombudsman. This person is charged with being a sort of spokesman/reporter for the reader. I wind up reading those for the New York Times and ESPN more than anyone else, but I am sure there are numerous other engaging ones.

Clark Hoyt of the Times is excellent at what he does. But Gawker Media wonders is he isn't getting a little soft in light of the newspaper's continued financial struggles. There's a lot of inside baseball contained therein, but basically they are contending that he was too soft on some major ethical breaches and too hard on ultimately inconsequential ones. And, the argument goes, he let a star columnist (Maureen Dowd) off easy, which is suspect.

While I agree with some of the minutia, for the most part I'm not buying Gawker's argument. First of all, for me it is not an Ombudsman's job to be a constant source of criticism and a thorn in the paper's side. He or she should be that, but they should also be a champion and cheerleader of great reportage. They should never be an apologist, but at the same time they should write with an understanding of the challenges journalists face -- now more than ever. Most importantly, an Ombudsman should be independent. That means they need not backhand slap every minor transgretion or always take the side of the critics. Not every mistake need result in a crisis of confidence. At the same time, Gawker is providing one more layer of oversight and analysis -- this time of the oversee and analyst -- and that's never a bad thing.