Another one bites the dust

In a memo sent to Romenesko, the Sacramento Bee announced that it will drop its ombudsman position. The Bee has had a public editor for "several decades" and it does not bode well for the future of this position that in the last year both the Bee and the Minneapolis Star Tribune disposed of their ombudsman/public editor. Both newspapers have a long tradition of having an ombudsman on their staffs, but no longer seem to be able/willing to support the position. An ombudsman is a sort of independent in-house critic who at the same time addresses readers complaints and communicates about his endeavors through a regular column. The idea is to make the paper more "accountable" to its readers. It always seemed a good idea to me, though given the rough economic climate, I can see how newspapers rather cut this position than a reporter's. The Bee also states that the changes in technology in the last 10 years have made the position also somewhat obsolete:

"Times have changed since the era in which many ombudsmen and public editor jobs were established. Readers now have multiple ways to be heard within the newspaper and in the community. Bee journalists are accessible via email, and we publish their phone numbers as well. Our story comments let readers complain openly about parts of coverage they do not like. Newspapers in general have become more accessible to the public. Most recently, Editor Melanie Sill has been writing a weekly column as a way to converse regularly with readers. And I interact with readers via phone or e-mail virtually every day."

True as this may be, the ombudsman's voice carries a sense of authority and reason, standing between defensive editors and outraged readers, and I doubt that the mechanisms mentioned above can replace this. The Chicago Tribune also has a public editor, Timothy McNulty, let's enjoy it while it lasts.