By Takeshi Maezawa
Tokyo Keizai University
Tokyo Keizai University
The purpose of this study-note is not to demonstrate an academic theory but to document the controversy over ombudsmanship. In particular, I would like to focus attention on the origins and functions of newspaper ombudsmen and also present my own view regarding this controversy. The first question discussed in the controversy is: Where did ombudsmanship originate in, North America or Japan? American ombudsmen have recognized recently that it originated, or at least invented, in Japan but I want to argue against it.
The second question derived from the first one is: Does the Japanese system of ombudsmanship deserve the name of ombudsman? For this matter, I cannot say yes without reservation. Nevertheless, we would be pleased to see in the process of this discussion that ombudsmen investigate the truths fairly, and frankly disclose all the facts they find to readers.
The beginning of the controversy: the revision of brochures
The controversy arose from some different contexts between two versions of the brochures (1) of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO). The one was released in July 1993 and the other in September 1999.
The chapter “Is this a new idea?” in the previous brochure states: Relatively speaking, yes. The first newspaper ombudsman was appointed in June 1967, in Louisville, Kentucky, to act for readers of The Courier-Journal and The Louisville Times. The Canadian appointment at The Toronto Star was in 1972.
On the other hand, the new brochure added some different items of information to the previous one: (But) the general concept stems from a “Bureau of Accuracy and Fair Play” established in 1913 at The New York World. Nine years later The Asahi Shimbun in Tokyo established a committee to receive and investigate reader complaints.(2) It was modeled after the World’s bureau.
Another mass circulation Tokyo paper, The Yomiuri Shimbun, set up a staff committee in 1938 to monitor the paper’s quality. In 1951 this group became a 28-member ombudsmen committee which today hears reader complaints about the paper and which meets daily with editors.
We must pay attention to some items of information provided by Osami Okuya, a senior staff of the Ombudsmen Committee of the Yomiuri,(3) to Arthur Nauman, Executive Secretary of ONO. As a matter of fact, almost all of those items are contained in the new brochure edited by Nauman.
According to Okuya, in July 1999 he sent Nauman some documents including a report of his research on Japanese committees to “improve the quality of our newspaper,”(4) and a copy of an announcement that appeared in the Asahi Shimbun newspaper of 1922.(5) He says about his intention: I just wanted to let my colleagues (ONO members)(6) know that we have had various types of in-house contents-checking systems in many Japanese newspapers and that in a sense they might be equivalent to the contemporary ombudsmanship. But I was strongly surprised at seeing Nauman’s way of evaluating my information and revising the brochure.
The Courier Journal’s correction
Immediately after the 1999 brochure was mailed to ONO members, a swift response unexpectedly came from Linda Raymond, ombudsman for The Courier-Journal, Kentucky.
Her column titled “We were wrong” appeared in the Courier-Journal(7) and attracted her colleagues’ interest. In it, “she told her colleagues and readers about some newly discovered history of news ombudsmanship, and made a telling point about a basic rule of journalism.
“(8) Her column is as follows:
“(8) Her column is as follows:
We were wrong:
The Courier-Journal thought it was creating the first news ombudsman in 1967. In fact, the Japanese invented the idea in 1922.By Linda RaymondFor 32 years, The Courier-Journal has taken pride in the belief that it appointed the first newspaper ombudsman and launched the international newspaper ombudsman movement. We were wrong.We didn’t know that the concept had already been operating for many years in Japan when, in 1967, C-J editor and publisher Barry Bingham Sr. established the post here and John Herchenroeder became the first to fill it.Over the years since, Herch and his successors (I’m among them) have listened to and acted on thousands of calls from readers with concerns about the newspaper. We’ve also supported an international organization of people with similar jobs, the Organization of News Ombudsmen, aptly known as ONO.Our error came to light when ONO’s executive secretary Art Nauman revised a brochure that included the movement’s history and circulated it among members of ONO’s board of directors.Board member Osami Okuya of the Yomiuri Shimbun in Tokyo saw a problem: His newspaper had established an ombudsman committee in 1938.As Okuya researched the issue, he discovered that another Tokyo paper, Asahi Shimbun, announced in 1922 that it was establishing a panel to receive reader comments about errors. When I asked Okuya to share what he’d found, he kindly sent a thick sheaf of documents, all in Japanese. Keiko Kuwabara, director of the Japan Center of Greater Louisville at Indiana University Southeast, graciously helped translate the beautiful script that was, she said, the Japanese equivalent of Shakespearean English. From Okuya, Kuwabara and Nauman, this is the story that emerged:In 1922, Asahi published a story saying that it was forming a committee to deal with a growing problem. Newspapers, pressed for time on deadlines, were making mistakes. Usually the paper would later apologize for the errors, but a lot of people were concerned. The newspaper feared that the newspaper and ordinary people couldn’t cooperate.The ombudsmen committee would try to prevent that kind of situation by investigating when necessary and apologizing or solving the trouble. It would try to be fair and make everything fair, the paper said.”The writer really insists how important it is,” Kuwabara said. Asahi credited the idea of the committee to the old New York World, which, it said, set up a similar system called the Bureau of Accuracy and Fair Play, in New York City in July 1913. (I have read the New York World for that period on microfilm until my eyes crossed without finding the story Asahi cited. The World is no longer published, so tracking its committee may be a good project for a future journalism student or historian.)By 1938, Yomiuri Shimbun had to deal with many lawsuits prompted by news stories. It established a committee to ”improve the quality of our newspaper.”The staff began by comparing each day’s editions with competing Tokyo dailies. Then, in 1951, it invited readers to contact it with complaints or comments.Today the Yomiuri Shimbun has a circulation of several million and a 28-member committee whose members specialize in various types of complaints. The committee meets daily with editors who, by all reports, take the ombudsmen very seriously.Clearly, in the spirit of the movement’s beginnings, The Courier-Journal owes an apology to the Japanese newspapers and thanks to Okuya for his help in setting the record straight. We aren’t alone.Nauman noted in his message to ONO members that journalists, scholars, master’s degree candidates and ombudsmen have all assumed over the years that the movement started here.So we all violated a cardinal rule of journalism: Don’t assume anything.(9)
The actual structure of Japanese ombudsmanship
By publishing her column, Linda Raymond and The Courier-Journal afford readers strong evidence that an ombudsman is really, and should be, independent of his/her newspaper. However, in spite of her honest explanation, I would say that the question, “What is the origin of ombudsmanship?” has never been answered. Otherwise, we are faced another question difficult to answer, that is, “Can we recognize newspaper-contents checking systems in Japan as ombudsmanship equivalent to American’s?” My answer is that we essentially cannot. Then, I sent a report containing my view to Nauman and asked him to pass it along to ONO members, with my comment:
I hesitate to recognize that “newspaper-contents checking systems”(10) in Japan can be regarded as worthy of ombudsmanship. No scholar or media person in Japan ever denies that the Courier-Journal established the post first in 1967. I am convinced that nobody actually violated a cardinal rule of journalism.
Nauman swiftly wrote ONO members:(11)
The discussion about the exact time and location of the origins of news ombudsmanship continues apace. Takeshi Maezawa, an associate ONO member and former ombudsman for the Yomiuri Shimbun in Tokyo,(12) was moved to react to the column written by Linda Raymond on the subject. He sent along the following elaboration, based on a study he has made of the Japanese media system.
My report is as follows:
Is it fair and accurate to call Japanese watchdogs “ombudsmen”?
The Japanese media world has a long history and many huge systems for in-house newspaper-contents checking function, as my colleague Okuya mentioned. Most newspapers in Japan have been operating this kind of program for more than 30 years, while a few newspapers started it before World War II. However, they wouldn’t like to call their programs “ombudsman”. The major reasons or questions for them are lack of disclosure and independence.
According to a survey by NSK, The Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association, as of April 1997, 56 of 94 daily newspapers responding had their own department for these programs. The total number of daily newspapers in NSK is 116 and about half have such a department.
It should be noted, however, that neither department nor position formally named ombudsman exists in Japanese media companies. A few months after the “coral defacing incident”(13) was uncovered in May, 1989, the Asahi released through NSK English language News Bulletin “Our newspaper established Advisory Press Council composed of five prominent people including a former chief justice of the Supreme Court and it is generally hoped that it will perform as an ombudsman for the newspaper.”
As far as this council is concerned, the idea is excellent but in the event, the aim and activities are too different from the ones of the press council or ombudsmanship invented in other countries.
Actually, the names of those departments for checking the contents of papers in Japanese media companies and the titles of staff members are extremely varied. The most popular one is “The Committee for Checking Papers” and others are “The Chamber for Inspection of News Stories”, “The News Content Evaluation Department”, “The Section for Checking Articles” and so on. Anyhow, you would say; each of Japanese people is not independent and always prefers to do things in a committee like a tour group. As for their supervisors, one forth of these groups is led by a managing editor and one third are led directly by a president. The latter system shows a complete independence from a newsroom and the number increased from nine, in 1989, to 15 companies, in 1993 and 1997.
The number of staff assigned to ‘ombudsman’ duties is 481 in all and averages 9 per newspaper. How many it is! However 80 per sent of them are holding additional posts. At the same time, the functions of the system are various, too, from checking a wrong word and omission of a word to educating writers about media ethics.
Most results of checking and evaluating contents are released in each newsroom through both of or one of oral and printed statements to writers and editors.
As for The Yomiuri Shimbun Ombudsmen Committee is concerned, the present system was formed in 1951. If I literally translate the Japanese name of the committee into English, it should be The Committee of Newspaper Contents Inspectors. But I didn’t like to use this name because “inspection” implies “censorship”, and that’s why I have been calling “ombudsmen committee” since I first attended the ONO meeting in Minneapolis in 1985.
The main objectives of the committee are to improve the accuracy and fairness, and other activities are:
- Daily conferences with editors to evaluate articles.
- Twice-weekly in-house reports.
- Columns and reports in the paper.
- Examining applications for awards and prizes.
The president supervises the committee and I as a member had been trying to keep its independence from other departments in the paper. I am sure Okuya has been doing do. A national meeting of the representatives sponsored by NSK is held every year in order to exchange their experiences and thoughts and in a sense to reduce a common conception of guidelines for the Japanese media.
I will be unfair if I failed to refer to the fact that they gradually became concerned with the credibility of all the press. However, it seems to me that most newspapers established their checking systems mainly for the purpose of promoting QC (quality control) in their own newspapers, as with manufacturing industries, but not for responding to the public’s right to know and to readers’ access to media.
In reality, while many media companies have the department or system equivalent to ombudsman, they are reluctant to disclose information about themselves and invite readers to participate in discussion to adhere to media ethics. It is said Media world is one of the most exclusive communities.
That’s why other newspapers than the Yomiuri might hesitate to name their department “ombudsman” and join in ONO.
Nauman added his observation on Japanese ombudsmanship to his notice to ONO members: My own personal feeling is that while the Japanese media may not have been calling the function “ombudsmanship”, they certainly were (and are) acting in the classic spirit of ombudsman by taking active steps to improve their quality and, thus, their credibility. The rather elaborate and widespread committee system of quality control exceeds anything that is (or was in the past) found among American newspapers. So, in short, I think the Japanese deserve credit for laying the solid basis for what later was to become the independent ombudsman in the U.S. and elsewhere, functioning alone and independently.
Comparison of the American type of ombudsmanship and the Swedish type
We observed that news ombudsmen in North America are working alone and, in contrast, their Japanese colleagues are usually working as a group. Nevertheless, we can’t ignore some common characteristics and functions they have as in-house jobs.
Equally important, I must refer here to the third type of ombudsman, “Press Ombudsman for The General Public” in Sweden, which was established two years later than in the U.S. In a sense, it is “popular” among Japanese researchers and citizens who are interested in media ethics. Moreover, some of them eagerly insist that this is the only one that deserves the title of “ombudsman.” When Takemoto Iinuma, then editor of The English Daily Yomiuri, asked me in May 1987 to become an ombudsman and I started to run a series of columns entitled “Ombudsman” for the newspaper, some persons showed strong opposition to using that title.
They say, “Ombudsman” is a Scandinavian word meaning a representative of the people and has a long history in Sweden. For all that, in my view, it doesn’t mean that the title of ombudsman as well as its job should be monopolized by Scandinavian people. Actually, Dr. Thorsten Cars, former Swedish Ombudsman, has occasionally visited the U.S. and Japan to communicate with local ombudsmen, and to attend ONO meetings, and, needless to say, he called them ” ombudsmen.”
The following is one of my series-columns that I wrote to the media as an ombudsman.(14) Though it was written more than ten years ago, I am convinced that it will provide us with the accurate concept and information about ombudsmanship that are still applicable at the present time.
Role of the ombudsman
A letter has arrived at The Yomiuri Shimbun that provides me with an opportunity to explain something of the Yomiuri Shimbun Ombudsmen Committee, of which I am a member,(15) and the general philosophy of ombudsmanship.
The letter is from Eizo Yamagiwa, a member of a group founded to support persons reportedly accused or convicted of crimes they did not commit, and addressed to Itsuo Moriwaki, Chairman of the Yomiuri Shimbun Ombudsmen Committee.
Yamagiwa’s interest was aroused by an article in the March 6 issue of The Daily Yomiuri on a discussion with Swedish Press Ombudsman Dr. Thorsten Cars, hosted by The Yomiuri Shimbun.
Yamagiwa claimed that The Yomiuri Shimbun erroneously termed its own committee “Ombudsmen,” though it is formally known as the committee of Newspaper Contents Inspectors. The Swedish Ombudsman is formally known as “Press Ombudsman for the General Public,” and only a person responsible to the general public deserves the name of ombudsman, Yamagiwa argues. He adds that an “in-house system ” or one supervised by the president” is inconsistent with a role of performing a duty “for the general public.”
My comment is as follows:
When a person is an “ombudsman for the general public”, it certainly means that he should protect the public interest, but not necessarily that he should be elected by the general public. In fact, even in Sweden, Dr. Cars and his predecessors have never been elected by the public, but were appointed by a board consisting of representatives from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Bar Association and the Press Collaboration Board. In countries other than Sweden, press ombudsmen are all appointed by newspapers from among applicants from inside or outside the papers. If this were not the case the newspapers would be unable to maintain freedom of the press.
As for accountability, a system supervised directly by the president is the most reasonable way to preserve the independence of the press ombudsman from any other department within a paper.
When this column appears in print, I will be in North America, on a visit mainly for the purpose of attending the annual conference of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), in Louisville, Kentucky. In support of the above argument, I would like to list some of the “Guidelines for Ombudsmen”, adopted by the ONO on May 12, 1982, at a meeting in Washington, D.C.
The guidelines state: The ombudsman must be independent, and that independence must be real. He should be answerable only to the person with the highest authority over the news department.
Also, Clair Balfour, then president of the ONO and ombudsman at the Montreal Gazette, in Canada, said in a letter to the editor of Editor & Publisher issued August 9, 1986, responding to criticism of news ombudsmen:
“Ombudsmen, as A.H. Raskin wrote in The New York Times magazine, June 11, 1967, are to ‘check on the fairness and adequacy of their newspapers’ coverage and comment’ and ‘to get something done about valid complaints and to propose methods for more effective performance of all the paper’s services to the community, particularly the patrol it keeps on the frontiers of thought and action.’”
Today, ombudsmen or reader advocates in Louisville, Detroit, Boston, Milwaukee, Washington, Sacramento, and Toronto and about three-dozen other cities in the United States and Canada are doing just that. Others hold similar positions in Israel, Spain, Britain, Sweden and Japan. ABC News and CBS News have people in similar roles, said Balfour. At the same time, the ONO guidelines say:
The objectives of a newspaper ombudsman shall be:
- To improve the fairness, accuracy and accountability of the newspaper.
- To enhance its credibility.
- To make the newspaper aware of the concerns of and the issues in, the communities served by it.
Frankly speaking, I hesitate to conclude that our committee has completely and effectively represented readers who have complaints, suggestions or questions. However, when I wrote to Arthur Nauman, then president of ONO and ombudsman at the Sacramento Bee, California, in 1984, suggesting that we stay in touch, he answered: “Obviously, you and we have common goals, and this association will help us to reach them.” Soon afterward, the ONO permitted me to join as an associate member.
I would like to say that since then we have been striving even harder to fulfill our duty at a level beyond the potential limitations suggested by Yamagiwa. In the earnest hope that we will be able to further develop ombudsmanship in Japan, we reiterate our invitation to any member of the community to submit comment, advice and criticism.(16)
Conclusion
Precisely speaking, I have to recognize that I failed to find a clear conclusion on each of the subjectscthe origins and functions of ombudsmanshipcbrought forward by the controversy. Nevertheless, I would like to present here some important findings below:
Finding 1: As far as “a newspaper ombudsman for an individual newspaper” is concerned, we will be able to find its origin in the Courier-Journal in Kentucky, U.S. In fact, ombudsmanship is expected to exercise an accountability function that is a complete disclosure of the facts found in the process of news coverage.
Finding 2: If we talk about “an in-house newspaper contents checking department”, some newspaper companies in Japan have a long history that had already started before World War II. While these departments have been functioning as QC sections for products (printing newspapers), they have hardly been disclosing full information necessary for credibility in default of perfect independency from the newsroom.
Finding 3: In my view, Press Ombudsman for the General Public in Sweden is completely independent of outside persons and organizations and free of influence from any social and political power. So, it may be ideal for protecting the public rights and enhancing media ethics. In other words, we would be very delighted if we could import it, along with a press council as well, into Japan. However, I cannot help reserving a single problem for actualizing the idea. Namely, the difficulty in finding and selecting a prominent and admirable person deserving to be an ombudsman in this country surrounded by a great deal of enthusiastic media critics.
I would like to refer, in particular, to a declaration adopted at the 42nd Annual Conference for Human Rights, which was sponsored by The Japan Federation of Bar Associations, in Maebashi, October 15 1999. It requests printing media, or newspapers and magazines, to establish a press council and also to improve in-house ombudsman systems for newspapers as soon as possible.
The conclusion of this study is that Japanese journalists and media companies should start urgent programs for improving the conditions of disclosure and independence so that they can establish much better ombudsmanship.
Notes
1. Editors for the public — What are News Ombudsmen and Why Should the Media Have Them, September 1999.
2. The Tokyo Asahi Shimbun, October 21, 1922.
3. He is also a member of ONO’s board of directors.
4. News From ONO, July 20, 1999.
5. The Tokyo Asahi Shimbun, October 21, 1922.
6. As of September 1999, the number of ONO members is 57 in 14 countries.
7. Forum, The Courier-Journal, September 5, 1999.
8. News From ONO, October 5, 1999.
9. These sections entitled “ombudsmanship” in Japanese newspapers have a variety of names.
See my report, “Is It Fair And Accurate to Call Japanese Watchdogs ‘Ombudsmen’?” 10. His letter, including a file of my report, was sent by e-mail on October 5, 1999.
11. A member of ONO, 1985-1991, before an associate member, 1991. A senior staff of “Ombudsmen Committee ” for the Yomiuri, 1981-1991.
12. The Asahi Shimbun April 20, 1989, evening edition carried a photograph of a coral on which the letter “K.Y” had been scratched. A caption with the photograph questioned, “Who is K.Y who damaged a coral?” In fact, the photographer had destroyed the coral.
13. “Ombudsman” from 1987 to 1991 and “Watchdog” from 1991 to 1992 for The Daily Yomiuri. “The Press Watching” since 1996 for a media study magazine supported by Kyodo.
14. Ombudsman for The Daily Yomiuri, 1987-1993.
15. ” Ombudsman”, The Daily Yomiuri, May 18, 1987.
2. The Tokyo Asahi Shimbun, October 21, 1922.
3. He is also a member of ONO’s board of directors.
4. News From ONO, July 20, 1999.
5. The Tokyo Asahi Shimbun, October 21, 1922.
6. As of September 1999, the number of ONO members is 57 in 14 countries.
7. Forum, The Courier-Journal, September 5, 1999.
8. News From ONO, October 5, 1999.
9. These sections entitled “ombudsmanship” in Japanese newspapers have a variety of names.
See my report, “Is It Fair And Accurate to Call Japanese Watchdogs ‘Ombudsmen’?” 10. His letter, including a file of my report, was sent by e-mail on October 5, 1999.
11. A member of ONO, 1985-1991, before an associate member, 1991. A senior staff of “Ombudsmen Committee ” for the Yomiuri, 1981-1991.
12. The Asahi Shimbun April 20, 1989, evening edition carried a photograph of a coral on which the letter “K.Y” had been scratched. A caption with the photograph questioned, “Who is K.Y who damaged a coral?” In fact, the photographer had destroyed the coral.
13. “Ombudsman” from 1987 to 1991 and “Watchdog” from 1991 to 1992 for The Daily Yomiuri. “The Press Watching” since 1996 for a media study magazine supported by Kyodo.
14. Ombudsman for The Daily Yomiuri, 1987-1993.
15. ” Ombudsman”, The Daily Yomiuri, May 18, 1987.
This article was written for “Communication Science” No. 11, Vol. 5, a bulletin edited and published by Department of Communication Studies of Tokyo Keizai University.
Time in Tunis