Public Editors Need Not Apply

WHY PUBLICATIONS IN THE #FAKENEWS ERA ARE DITCHING OMBUDSMEN.

- Sara Jerde

A handful of publications recently eliminated their public editor positions in favor of social media, appointing “reader representatives” and sharing more details about how stories were reported as ways to keep their newsrooms in check. But those avenues, media experts said, don’t replace having an internal, trained, professional journalist investigating issues that arise in newsrooms to hold editors accountable.

Publications including The Washington Post in 2013, The New York Times last year and, most recently ESPN in May, eliminated their public editor positions. The role had “outlived its usefulness,” ESPN explained, while The New York Times said no one person could handle all the responsibilities of the position. (Each publication referred back to its original statement in response to requests for comment.) In those original announcements, executives from each publication also cited the internet as an outlet for their newsrooms to be criticized.

“It’s not so much a matter of finding a conduit for readers to reach out to editors and reporters. If anything, there’s such a flood of stuff that journalists get these days from readers,” said Bill Grueskin, a Columbia Journalism School professor, adding that public editors use strong journalistic skills to explain to readers how and why newsroom decisions are made.