Ombudsmen weigh in on changes at the New York Times

Following the recent changes at the New York Times that included the appointment of a "public editor" by new executive editor Bill Keller, API surveyed several ombudsmen and journalism educators for their take on the situation.

Also, given the problems with the editor position there, the ombudsman ought to report directly to the publisher, not the editor.

Mike Clark
Reader Advocate, Florida Times-Union

Did the NY Times make the right moves?

Only time will tell. Readers don't seem ready to forgive the transgressions. Every time we publish a Times story, readers call me and protest the use of information they say they can't trust.

Have they gone far enough?

I don't think a newspaper can ever go far enough in developing relationships with readers that protect credibility and trust.

What else needs to be done to restore the NY Times?

Keep us (readers and the industry) informed about internal steps. It's good to hear how the pursuit of credibility is a top priority. Plus, we all can learn from how the Times handles the situation. Get rid of the perception of the Times as a palace of intellectual elitism. That projects an image of stubborn self-adoration, which is far from a portrait of ideal journalism — in my book anyway. Aggressive humility has built quite a track record over the ages.

David House
Senior Editor/Reader Advocate
Star-Telegram

The New York Times was too slow and too arrogant in responding to this scandal. As a result, the newspaper's credibility and integrity have suffered. Now The Times needs to be more proactive and demonstrate to readers, its staff and to journalists across the country that it has taken steps to ensure this
kind of scandal will not reoccur. Employing an ombudsman with a wide-ranging mandate to bring order to the house and to give readers and sources a voice through which management decisions and actions can be challenged and audited, would help. If The Times uses this embarrassment to ensure that nothing like this happens again, then journalism will be the ultimate beneficiary.

Tendayi S. Kumbula, Ph.D.
Journalism Department
Ball State University

Appointment of an ombudsman is long overdue. Even before Jayson Blair, there was a need for an ombudsman that was ignored and dismissed by the Times. There still seems to be some hesitation about the position. However, I'm confident the ombudsman selected will prove his or her value to the newspaper and that the Times will recognize having a permanent ombudsman on staff with a regular column is an essential of credibility, fairness and accountability.

Gina Lubrano
Readers Representative, The San Diego Union-Tribune
Executive Secretary, Organization of News Ombudsmen

Did the NY Times make the right moves? Yes but... Raines and Boyd were dismissed, I think, more because of a staff rebellion against their management styles. It had something to do with the Blair affair but not everything.

Still, the newsroom needed some fresh air and the dismissals accomplished that. Keller's appointment along with the two new managing editors and the ombudsman are well-intentioned and will help shore up the Times' reputation. I think the most important decision, though, was Keller's decision to delegate broad responsibility to mid-level editors. This will end top-down management and add another layer of protection against flawed reporting and editing.

Have they gone far enough? We'll know in time.

What else needs to be done to restore the NY Times? Be the traditional New York Times. Get opinions out of news stories. Resist overblown campaigns that please some editors but turn off readers. And, more important, take control of the use of anonymous sources. It was outrageous that Jayson Blair was allowed to use anonymous sources without the scrutiny of a seasoned editor. Lynette Holloway's flawed piece on Steven Gottlieb had the same problem. The Times has a newsroom full of seasoned journalists — some of the best in the nation — but they need the help of skeptical editors just as much as beginning reporters.

Reid MacCluggage
Retired Editor and Publisher
The Day (New London, CT)

I think the Times has made the right moves, but their success will depend on the buy-in from both management and staff. If either expects the public editor to absorb and deflect all criticism, the system will break down. The public editor can serve as a liaison between readers and the journalists whose work has puzzled or offended them. But a public editor can't hope unilaterally to address all complaints. Prolonged exemplary performance will restore the Times' reputation. Attention, as called for in the report, to sound management, regular performance feedback, transparent sourcing and common courtesy will go a long way to accelerate that restoration.

Manning Pynn
Public Editor
The Orlando Sentinel

The New York Times is a newspaper with proud traditions. It's the gold standard of North American journalism, the paper we all look up to. Stained by a newsroom scandal, it has taken a hard look at itself.

The reforms announced by new executive editor Bill Keller, including a one-year ombud experiment, are potentially significant steps toward developing a culture of openness and accountability at The Times. But success will depend to a large degree on newsroom acceptance of the changes.

A quibble. I note the new "reader representative" will report to Keller with a "guarantee" of access to Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. It would have been preferable, perhaps, to have the ombud report to the publisher rather than newsroom management. As the Toronto Star's news ombud for nearly 10 years, I think it's healthy to be an extra step away from newsroom pressures.

More important, before newspaper proprietors in the United States and Canada pass judgment on whether The Times is making the right moves, they need to satisfy themselves they're doing all they can to prevent debacles in their own newsrooms.

Don Sellar
Ombud
The Toronto Star

I think what happened at the Times is system failure. One editor saw Jayson Blair in the newsroom when he filed stories with datelines from elsewhere. When the editor sounded the alarm, it went unheard and the cheating continued. It's just unthinkable what was going on at the Times.

The top editors at the NYT should resign not only because they didn't catch Blair's plagiarism, but because they were unrealistically pressuring young reporters for brilliant stories every day. The fiasco is the result of the blind chase of the Pulitzer Prize.

The middle level editors at the NYT should share some responsibilities too. They are supposed to be the gatekeepers.The management at the NYT should seriously review the fundamentals of good journalism instead of becoming complacent.

Jiafei Yin
Associate Professor of Journalism, Journalism Department
Central Michigan University