A Gathering of News Ombudsmen

The annual three day conference of the Organization of News Ombudsmen begins on May 19th in Los Angeles. About 40 members of ONO from more than 20 countries will gather to reconnect with old friends and to get acquainted with new members.

It's been a time of expansion for ONO with new members in Latin America, Africa, Germany and Eastern Europe. Even in the US, where ONO lost more than a dozen members due to the recession, there are early signs of an American return. But before we get too self-congratulatory, the meeting is to compare and contrast the state of the media in our respective news organizations and countries.

This year, there will be no shortage of issues. And as usual, the issues are rarely clear cut.

Among the topics for discussion:

• whether ombudsmen should be in the business of protecting sources. It may seem obvious to journalists, but the question becomes more complicated when a reporter's credibility is involved and whether a news organization owes a higher obligation to the public or to the reporter.

• Should ombudsmen correct opinion-based journalists, aka, columnists?

• Should ombudsmen intervene when the news organization engages in "pack journalism" even if the public does not object?

•  Has a freer press helped or hindered democracy in the Arab world after the "Arab Spring?" Is role of an ombudsman helpful in that process?

•  "Sponsored content" is one way in which newspapers have journalists writing advertising copy. It saves money for the paper, but does it sully the reputations of the journalists? And what should ombudsmen do when it happens?

Also we will be looking at how the role of the news ombudsman itself, has changed, and whether ombudsmen need to reassess their traditional position inside a media organization. Should they always remain at a distance from the editorial processes? Or should they be more involved as "trusted advisers" not only to the public, but to journalists and management as well?

As one publisher (who once employed an ombudsman, but dropped the position for economic reasons) told me when I asked him what would it take for him to re-hire an ombuds: "You guys have to step up your game."

Media organizations, especially in North America are going through contortions trying to find the next successful business model. Ombudsmen can provide credibility and trust with the public.

The hard question for ONO, is that still enough? 

Why We Need a "Slow News" Movement

We've all heard about the "slow food" movement (an antidote to fast food) where one takes time to savor the experience.

We need a "slow news" equivalent. And fast!

The debacles of how the news gets (not) covered in Boston and Sandy Hook, show what happens when competitive pressures produce wrong and conflicting information. This is happening with more frequency.

Part of the problem has always been when news outlets compete to be both first and right. Competition in media can be healthy and serve the interests of the information-seeking public.

But media organizations are now competing with each other and with social media. The result is a sense of chaos, disinformation and a more public flailing around for the correct information.

Producing "live" news has always been fraught. But thrilling too. While on the air, we would assign someone to monitor the other broadcasters to make sure we weren't being scooped. Or if we were, then the race was on to advance the story to keep us in front. There's no adrenalin like a live news special.

But at least we felt we were in competition with other news organizations who (roughly) shared our sense of mission and commitment to accuracy.

Not so now, with the Twitterverse. Misinformation and disinformation abounds, along with some very smart people who are more nimble than the older organizations. Watching reporters on CNN, CBS and CBC looking at their smart phones while on the air, was a sign that the reporting has been transformed by the technology, once again.

Here's where the "slow news" movement can help. Nicolas Carr was interviewed recently by Michael Enright on CBC Radio's Sunday Edition. Carr talked about how the internet is (to quote Enright) "making us stupid." That may be a Luddite's version of reality. But in fact, the public now has access to the news gathering process as never before, thanks to social media. The downside is that the once smooth presentation of verified "knowns" may now be a thing of the past.

Instead, media organizations need to do what they do best: make sense of the world. Including the twitterverse. That will require a conscious change in how information is presented: more slowly, with more deliberation and less panic.

For the adrenalin junkies in newsroom, this is bad news. But for the public, this can only be seen as a step closer to giving citizens what they want and what they need.

Is there a media organization willing to try?