Ombudsman promise: Why New York Times will fail to deliver

Any day now, the New York Times is expected to announce the appointment of its first ombudsman – what the Times is calling a "public editor," someone responsible for holding the newspaper accountable for inaccuracies and, presumably, biased reporting. The appointment of a public editor is part of the paper's effort to regain the trust of its readers in the aftermath of the Jayson Blair scandal, an affair which lead to the firing of the paper's executive editor and forever tainted the newspaper's vaunted reputation as a reliable source of news.

In theory, the appointment of a public editor is a step in the right direction. But the practical questions remain: What kind of person will they appoint and will that person have the independence necessary to the job "without fear or favor"? Will they appoint a true independent voice? Or will they choose one of the publisher's professional colleagues, a journalistic insider likely to pay only lip service to enforcing accuracy and impartiality? Even if they appoint someone truly independent, will it make any difference?

The exercise of "independence" by corporate directors has been recognized – especially after last year's spate of corporate scandals – as an essential element in holding CEOs accountable for their performance and integrity. Director "independence" is measured many ways – such as, one who is neither an employee of the company nor a relative of the CEO. But it has been my experience (as a director of a public company) that the only definition of independence a company's shareholders can really rely on is this: a director is independent if he is simply willing to tell the CEO, to put it delicately, where he can go (or what he can do with himself).

I'm not suggesting the same exacting standard for newspaper ombudsman, but I do question whether the person soon to be selected as the "public editor" of the New York Times will have any credibility at all if that person can't be trusted by its readers as someone who may act independently on their behalf.

TRENDING: Had Obama not played the race card, George Floyd might be alive

There are signs, however, that the Times has already set up its ombudsman for failure by undercutting the position's independence at the outset. The position is only experimental and will only have a one-year term, at the end of which time the person serving may be summarily tossed. But the problem runs much deeper than that. The Times has suggested it will be hiring a journalist for the job.

How can you expect a person to blow the whistle on journalists for incompetence and bias when the ombudsman himself is also a journalist? You would not hire a lawyer to hold the legal professional accountable any more than you could ask a doctor to hold the medical profession accountable. And there's good reason for this.

For a journalist in the midst of one's career – thinking about one's professional aspirations – or one ensconced in academia – thinking about one's reputation as a sage of the profession – "telling the truth to power" will be no easy matter. The fear of retribution from the Times and the journalistic community for seriously engaging, criticizing or embarrassing into refinement what they already consider to be the "gold standard" will be too great.

No, the only path to true independence is a public editor willing to side with the truth, always, regardless of considerations of future employment or concerns about not being invited to the next cocktail party at the Columbia School of Journalism.

In addition, the ombudsman should have no known liberal credentials, which would tend to blind the person to liberally biased news reporting.

But there are already concerns that rooting out bias will not be among the public editor's responsibilities. In fact, objectivity doesn't even seem to be a concern of the Times at all.

Upon his appointment as executive editor of the Times this summer, Bill Keller said charges that his newsroom was liberally biased were "unfounded." (He had no need to deny charges that the paper slants its news to the right, because such charges are not taken seriously).

Nor has Keller's boss, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., been willing to admit the Times slants the news. After former executive editor Howell Raines was fired, Sulzberger was asked whether readers can expect a change in the Times' front page reporting. "That's strategic," he replied. "Things that are strategic don't change with people." Howell Raines was not fired because he was too liberal, he was fired because he was no longer convenient to have around.

A few weeks ago, the Times quietly issued the results of an internal investigation of the Blair scandal by its "Seigel Committee." In the 56 pages of the committee's report on the Times' reporting practices, not once appeared the words "fairness," "objectivity" or "impartiality." (The author of that report, Allan M. Siegal, was named "standards editor" of the Times earlier this week. Not surprisingly, fairness, objectivity and impartiality are not standards that were included in the standards editor's job description).

If the Times does not even acknowledge the existence of bias in its news reporting, how can it be expected to fix it? One lone ombudsman is not likely to make much progress with people who are in such denial.

Perhaps a public editor who is truly independent – acting without "fear" of his job and without currying "favor" to the ideological views of the editorial page – can at least put a stake in the ground on behalf of the Times readers. By doing so, the public editor would, in a small way, advance the cause of objectivity.

But unless the Times heeds such advice, and actually ceases using its news pages to influence public opinion, the decline in the Times' reputation as a reliable source of news will continue its downward tailspin.