This presentation was made in June 1994 at a symposium entitled “Press Regulation: How far has it come?” in Seoul, Korea. The symposium was presented by the International Communication Research Institute, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, and the Citizens Coalition for Media Watch. The Munhwa Broadcasting Corp. and Korea Press Center were hosts. Among the participants were Joann Byrd, ombudsman for The Washington Post; Richard P. Cunningham, professor, New York University; Lynne Enders Glaser, ombudsman, The Fresno Bee; Arthur C. Nauman, ombudsman, The Sacramento Bee; and William Morgan, ombudsman, Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
By Lynne Enders Glaser
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
I am pleased and honored to be here with you distinguished members of the Korean press and to discuss topics of mutual concern. I thank you for this professional opportunity and pleasure, and for the added personal joy of being able to visit to Korea for my first time.
Essentially, I will focus on my interaction with readers as ombudsman for The Fresno Bee.
By way of background, the city of Fresno rests in a rich agricultural valley in Central California and serves as the county seat. Fresno is approximately 175 south of San Francisco and 225 miles north of Los Angeles. It is approximately 90 miles inland of the Pacific coast and about an equal distance from the Sierra Nevada range to the east.
Historically, farming has been the largest employer, but in the last two decades there has been a dramatic increase in the retailing, government, construction/land development and service-industries sectors. The area has long-standing ties to the Midwest and to the Southern states, which accounts, at least in part, for its politically conservative nature.
One in five people has a Hispanic surname or heritage. There is a large and growing presence of immigrants from Southeast Asia. A third major influence is that of the Armenian-Americans.
The Fresno Bee is the San Joaquin Valley’s dominant newspaper, with a daily circulation of approximately 160,000 and a Sunday circulation of approximately 192,000. It is the second- largest daily within the publicly owned company of McClatchy Newspapers Inc.; The Sacramento Bee, at which Mr. Nauman is the ombudsman, is the largest.
In December 1990, The Fresno Bee created the position of news ombudsman. I was named to that post, taking with me approximately 30 years as a reporter, copy editor and editor at The Bee and other newspapers, television stations and magazines in the United States.
My charge, given by then-Executive Editor Beverly Kees, was to listen carefully to what readers say about The Bee, to investigate their concerns and, finally, to respond to those questions, comments, complaints and — yes, even an occasional compliment — in a timely and unbiased manner. My turf would be restricted at first to the news columns, or the part of the newspaper that should be free from writer and editor opinion and likewise divorced from the business side. Among the specific areas I would be asked to review, in addition to unwarranted opinion, were factuality, balance, tone, personal intrustion vs. the public’s right to know, sensitivity, story placement, headlines, photo captions, bias, good taste and the content of photos and artwork.
The position reported at first to the executive editor. Now it reports to the publisher, who has increased the scope of responsibilities and authority to include contact with all other departments, at least at information levels.
As it occurs, most of my time is spent in telephone conversations with readers who have a complaint about the paper. I listen, take notes and ask questions to provide perspective. The more angry the reader, generally, the longer the call. Often, it’s important to get past the immediate issue to identify a personal or political agenda. Mondays through Fridays, the newsroom receives a report on that day’s traffic via computer; editors get hard copy at the afternoon front-page planning session; a printout is sent by interoffice mail to the publisher.
Generally, I receive calls or letters from 60 to 70 readers a week, with an overall ratio of five calls to one letter. This number allows time for the kind of personal interaction that not only solves problems, when they exist, but creates good will for the paper.
In the 12 months ended April 30, I had telephone or mail contact with slightly more than 1,700 readers. Of this number, approximately 1,285 outside the staff identified themselves by name. Another 188 men and 192 women sought anonymity for reasons ranging from fear of job loss to presumed personal safety to racism. I received 33 unsigned letters and also heard complaints about the product from two dozen reporters and editors.
About 16 percent of the readers who identified themselves utilized the ombuds at least twice, and about three-quarters of that number registered opinions three or more times, either speaking to a single issue or several subjects. The most strident group of callers was that of women who declined to identify themselves. All together, I estimate that I responded to about 3,700 calls and letters from May 1993 through April of this year, for a slight increase over the previous 12 months.
The most common complaints were that headlines were inaccurate or, at least in the readers’ minds, carried an inappropriate tone. Readers admonished the paper for bad math and bad grammar. They adamantly opposed pictures of violence or bloodshed, voiced resentment over what they considered media invasion into the lives of grieving private citizens and criticized the media collectively and The Bee, in particular, for what they said was “liberal bias.”
The topics that prompted the greatest response were crime, immigration, gun control, abortion, the gay community and just about anything to do with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Readers who identified themselves as “conservative” probably outnumbered those who called themselves “liberal” by 20 to 1. Given the marketplace, and that The Bee’s editorial posture is centrist to moderately liberal, that is hardly surprising.
“Did the readers’ participation have any effect on policy or practices?” you ask.
In short, you bet your life!
Numerous stories were prompted by readers’ input, readers’ knowledge resulted in important corrections and new features, including an extensive weather page and legislative updates, were developed through readers’ suggestions.
And here is a concrete example. Recently, editors moved several of the daily puzzles from the second page of the lifestyle section to a roving “corner” in classified. They left the crossword puzzle behind, however, which meant that people who work the crossword and another puzzle or puzzles had to deal with two sections instead of a single page and that certain puzzles floated hither and yon from day to day. Readers howled, and within 10 days of the initial move, the puzzles were back, and all together, on the second page of the lifestyle section. Several readers responded with “thank you” notes.
In addition to talking a lot on the phone, I address between two and four community-based organizations each month. Last year, I spoke to three dozen service, social, school and special-interest groups. Included were 6 a.m. breakfast sessions, dinner meetings and weekend assemblies in four of the five counties that the newspaper covers. Crowd size ranged from three people who gathered one foggy night in the library of a small oil and cattle town to 250 social- service professionals at their annual conference. My subjects ranged from the role of ombudsman to how a newspaper functions to media performance in a specific situation to press ethics and the First Amendment.
I allow at least 10 minutes at the end for audience participation. The questions raised and comments made generally are similar to those I hear on the phone or receive in the mail, with headlines again as the greatest irritant. Readers and I have engaged in numerous discussions about the public’s right to know vs. an individual’s right to privacy. We frequently have talked about the fairly common perception that the media display a liberal political bias.
I have two questions that I will pose if members of the audience seem hesitant to ask their own. The first is, “What can you tell me about your last contact with the press/the media/The Fresno Bee? Was it a positive or negative experience? How did you feel at the time, and how do you feel about the coverage, or lack of coverage, that followed?” If that doesn’t get things going, I ask, “What is the one thing about The Fresno Bee you would most like to change?” Seldom do I need the first question; almost never have I had to pose both. These discussions appear in my daily traffic reports.
Most groups are a pleasure to work with. Indeed, I recall only one that I consider truly hostile, and I have accepted all invitations extended.
Once I accept an invitation to speak, I approach the engagement much in the same way I approached an interview as a reporter. That is, I do my homework. I gather as much information as possible about the group from the person who made contact. I use The Bee’s electronic library in order to evaluate the coverage it received in the last two years and help me figure out what issues that audience might want to address.
Learning what I can about a group also helps me to formulate my approach as a speaker — whether, for instance, I want to sit on the edge of a table or stand behind a podium — and to reflect on my physical presence. I tailor my appearance and manner to each group, and I neither view that as manipulative or toady. My intention is to remove unnecessary barriers so that we, as representatives of the press and public, can participative in a cooperative, unrestrained exchange.
I don’t contend that speaking to groups is everybody’s idea of a good time. But I believe that accepting this level of intimacy helped me to more fully and more quickly establish a voice — and reputation — as the readers’ representative and, when appropriate, the readers’ advocate. It has expanded the forum for discussion well beyond what the telephone and mail can provide. It has given new numbers of readers a chance to speak out on the editorial conduct and content of their Bee. And that’s a real payoff to the paper.
What I hear from readers, be it by phone or mail or through groups, provides the substance for the ombudsman’s column, which appears Sundays in an anchored position on what is called the “Vision” page. Vision runs inside the B section of the newspaper, immediately before the editorial and second-opinion pages. There is talk of establishing a free-standing Vision section, a move that would increase visability of this column and, as a consequence, I believe, prompt additional numbers to contact the ombudsman.
Sometimes I base my column on the most popular issue of the week, sometimes on a trend and sometimes on a topic that simply strikes my fancy. Most often, I use it to address areas in which I think the paper has erred — that is, areas about which readers have complained and I consider their complaints to be valid. I use the column that way because the power lies with the paper. As a result, it has become an effective means by which readers can hold The Bee accountable for its actions and content. Upon occasion, I devote a column to newspaper procedures so that readers can better understand the news-delivery process. I think this also helps them to better appreciate the product and the effort that is necessary to produce it.
In the last two months, among the subjects I have covered are: a headline that offended the Armenian-American community, management’s unwise decision to move several word games, a controversial story involving athletes at a state university, incomplete coverage given to a raging speech in Fresno by Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam and women’s sports coverage.
The Farrakhan discussion was spread over two weeks, which is unusual. Generally, I contain a subject in one writing and, frequently, columns deal with two or more topics.
I follow a general format of beginning with the readers’ concern, move to a response from staff and end with my evaluation of whose view is correct and why. When appropriate, I offer suggestions that are intended to prevent the repetition of similar mishaps.
I write Friday morning for Sunday publicaton. The column is read by a copy editor for purposes of factual errors, grammar and style. The column is not subject to an editor’s or to the publisher’s approval, but I do distribute copies on Friday afternoon to the publisher, managing editor and any staff members who are named as a matter of courtesy. That the column is not subject to prior approval — to censorship — is not just critical, it is vital and essential and central to the ombudsman being able to function effectively as an independent voice.
An uncensored column amounts to the willingness of a newspaper to “go public” about its mistakes, and on this subject Ben Bradlee spoke candidly to the Columbia Journalism Review before his retirement as editor of the Washington Post. Said Bradlee, a freely written ombudsman’s column “prevents editors from sweeping anything under the rug. You have a representative out there who’s saying, ‘Don’t do that. You guys goofed. You fell short of your goals.’”
Anything less than that sort of support from the highest levels of your publishing company should be unacceptable.
A final phase of the ombudsman’s job is that of public relations, and I consider it an important element, too. The ombudsman is there to give readers access to the paper that they don’t otherwise have. They don’t otherwise have it because they don’t know someone on staff or they don’t know whom to call or even that it’s OK to call, and they don’t otherwise have it because reporters and editors don’t always have the time — or inclination — to stop what they’re doing to answer a reader’s question or complaints.
Providing that sort of access is the first reason we exist. Spreading the message of a free press, making people feel part of the process and helping them with their newspaper needs and wants is an outgrowth of that. This can be as simple as sending someone a copy of a clipping she lost, greeting readers at the county fair, reading to kids at a school or spending an extra minute on the phone with an elderly person who lives alone. Whatever, it makes the reader — your customer — feel good and it doesn’t result in any compromise on the newspaper’s part. It creates an alliance that is especially important in these days of increased competition and discouraging advertising and circulation statistics.
My conclusions?
I have learned in my three-and-one-half years as a news ombudsman is that it is much easier to deal with the public than it is with the newsroom, which I suspect is true because the newsroom generally is the object of challenge. Few of us take criticism truly well.
I’ve also found that readers feel passionately about their paper and that they take a proprietary interest in its performance. They are personally disappointed when it errs — or they believe that it errs. To this end, I’ve found that most readers are polite in their criticism, even when wronged, and that the overwhelming majority will accept an explanation as to how and why something happened, even when they disagree with the outcome. What they want to know is that very real thinking, and perhaps even debate, occured in the decision making.
Let me end with a quote from one of my favorite ombudsmen, Joann Byrd of the Washington Post. Said Byrd in her maiden column, “To my eye, ethical journalism is a reasoning process, a careful weighing of moral principles and real-world consequences that can result in several morally right answers. I want newspapers to have good-enough reasons when they offend or harm people.”
The news ombudsman helps make that happen. It is a position that I feel should exist at papers large and small — for the good of the press, as part of our self-regulation, and for the good of readers.
Time in Tunis