One Step Backward for the Old Grey Lady of the Media

06/05/2017 - 11h50

It happened at the New York Times (NYT). The position of Public Editor, equivalent to the Ombudsman, was eliminated. The management of the newspaper considered it to no longer be necessary. They believe that the function can be replaced by the screening of messages from readers and by monitoring comments on social media.

"Our followers on social media and our readers on the internet serve together collectively as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office," explained Aurther Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the NYT.

Last week's decision has triggered an intense debate regarding the value of a function that was only embraced by the newspaper in 2003, after the damage and potential loss of credibility caused by the scandal of Jayson Blair, a reporter who rose through the organization by publishing interviews he made up and fake news.

"The public editor position, created in the aftermath of a grave journalistic scandal, played a crucial part in rebuilding our readers' trusts by acting as our in-house watchdog.

We welcomed that criticism, even when it stung. But today, our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be", wrote Sulzberger.

Reactions were immediate and negative. The decision and its trite justification were roundly condemned by the media and journalists that cover the sector.

Some referred to as laughably childish the idea that followers on social networks and contributors to commentary sections could technically carry out the vigilance proposed by the publisher.
In her final column, Liz Spayd, the NYT's Ombudsman, noted the negative reaction of readers, whose expectation is to have someone with authority, a high-level perspective, and the ability to demand explanations and answers from the editors.

She raised doubts as to whether the management of the NYT was really seeking a new model or was merely tired of having the wisdom of its inner sanctum challenged.

From my point of view, the NYT, referred to by detractors for its arrogance as "The Old Grey Lady", fell down a step. It handled the position as if it were a Customer Service Center. It is much more than that.

Generally, the Ombudsman is an experienced and independent journalist, with sufficient baggage and tools to offer nuances and different perspectives than that of the Editors, fostering a healthy environment of self-criticism, which is beyond necessary during these times of societal polarization that the United States and Brazil are living through.

On Friday, in order to share my dismay with someone, I contacted the Ombudsmen from the English newspaper "The Guardian" and the Spanish paper "El País" as well as the media critic for the "Washington Post". They shared my surprise at the firing of our colleague and see the fact as damaging to journalism in general.

Margaret Sullivan, Liz Spayd's predecessor and today a media columnist for the "Washington Post" told me that the Public Editor can exert pressure for the accuracy of information in a way that critics from outside of the editorial circle cannot.

The Ombudsman has a unique, high-level position for getting answers from leaders of the organization and demanding that they clarify things, she explained on Twitter. "I felt, while holding the office for nearly four years, that I fulfilled an objective and important role demanded by the readers for the "Times" newspaper itself.

For Paul Chadwick of "The Guardian", journalism that is scrutinized with the same minutia that we scrutinize other powers and institutions is stronger and more trustworthy. "In these challenging times for journalism, the role of Ombudsman needs adaptation, but continues to be relevant."

The readers' defender at "El País", Lola Galán, is concerned about a domino effect at other media organizations. "Due to the importance and repercussion of the NYT, doing away with the Ombudsman could have consequences and lead other organizations to take the same decision."

Reader Jeferson Araújo Pereira effectively knocked down the official justification of the NYT: "Readers can't take over the job carried out by the Ombudsman for a very simple reason: they aren't journalists. The majority of readers operate through "I think so". "Think-ism" is different than journalism. I hope that this decision (wrong and ridiculous) by the NYT doesn't influence Folha. I can't imagine Folha without the presence of the Ombudsman", he wrote.

Quoting Editor-in-Chief Sérgio Dávila: "Folha has no plans to eliminate the position of Ombudsman. It is a trademark of the newspaper and an important part of its Editorial Project. Seen from a distance, the decision of the New York Times looks like a mistake".

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language