Guardian editor says lack of ombudsman will be "increasingly odd"

(enlarge photo)
Editors must adjust to the fact that citizen use of the Internet has eliminated their "previously omnipotent control" over news presentation and timing, the editor of The Guardian of London told journalists gathered at Harvard University. And Alan Rusbridger says news organizations without ombudsman or reader representatives will be seen as "increasingly odd." (Also see: Jeff Jarvis' blog on Rusbridger talk).

Rusbridger was speaking (FULL TEXT)  / (PDF) on Monday (April 21) to about 40 participants at the annual convention of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, held at the Walter Lippmann House headquarters of the Nieman Foundation. Rusbridger was opening speaker for a three-day session. His topic: "Ombudsmen in the Digital Future." Topics during the rest of the gathering include: "Is there a Shared Watchdog Role for the Public, the Blogs and Ombudsmen?"

The Guardian has had an ombudsman (sometimes known as a "public editor" or "reader representative") for more than 30 years. Rusbridger said the idea that editors might both commission stories for writing and then sit in judgement on their news worthiness is a thing of the past -- either stories will be thrust upon them by others, already in the public domain, or the stories they originate will be adjusted and analyzed by others. Newspapers are no longer the only source for key information, Rusbridger said.

The web, he said is "enabling millions of readers to check your version of events against the original" with the ensuing conversation -- corrections, clarifications -- taking place in other venues. "If there is any attempt to be selective or misquote peole . . . it is going to be released . . . and your journalism is going to be questioned."

Rusbridger used the example of his own interview with Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Cantebury, to illustrate how this changes things for editors. After completing a story about his interview -- in which Williams advocated an end to the teaching of creationism -- Rusbridger added to the web posting of the story both a full-text of the interview and the audio recording. "Some of my colleagues through this was extremely radical," said Rusbridger, because it would allow readers to check Rusbridger's account against the source.

"Well that's exactly what I wanted them to do, because I wasn't sure I had got ie exactly right regarding his views . . . of the future of the church," he added. The editor's point: Journalists must not imagine themselves as being the final word on the interpretation and summarization of news. Ticking through a list of about 16 web sites showing examples of citizen involvement in news gathering or analysis, Rusbridger concluded the common thread is a leveling of the playing field between reader and journalist. In the new environment, what still sets apart traditional, professional journalists is the degree to which they are trusted by their readers.

"Trust is the only thing in the end that we've got going for us," he said. One of the best ways a news organization can maintain and build trust with its readers or users is by charging someone within the organization with the job of researching and reporting publicly on professional lapses. While having such an ombudsman or reader representative is not a panacea, he said, the failure to have one "is just going to be seen as increasingly odd."

When one of the Guardian's own columnists excoriated the paper for the circumstances under which it published a section funded by a government housing agency which looked like news, Rusbridger said he let the column run -- and then discouraged the advertising department from rebutting it. He said the episode built trust with readers, who were amazed that the paper would allow such criticism within its own pages.

Newspapers are imperfect, said Rusbridger, citing a decades-old passage by Washington Post reporter and political columnist David Broder.