WHY MANY OF THE LARGEST U.S. NEWSPAPERS DO NOT HAVE AN OMBUDSMAN AS DETERMINED BY EDITORS' RESPONSES TO A HAIL SURVEY By Kent F". Lauer II Bachelor of Science Utah State University Logan, Utah 1977 Submitted ta the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE July, 1989 , . ·• . ., .. ' . ' ~ \.. , ~ :'. :· '·l .l Oklahoma State Univ. Lib WHY MANY OF THE LARGEST U.S. NEWSPAPERS DO NOT HAVE AN OMBUDSMAN AS DETERMINED BY EDITORS' RESPONSES TO A MAIL SURVEY Thesis Approved: Dean of the Graduate College ii ACKNOVLEDGMENTS My wife, Gina, was forced to leave her home and her job in Northern California when I told her I wanted to enroll in graduate school at Oklahoma State University to begin a new career teaching journalism at the college level. She did not hesitate and has always been supportive. To my wife, I will always be indebted. Thanks, Gina. I also want to thank Dr. Charles Fleming, thesis adviser, for his expert editing and guidance. To Dr. Marlan Nelson, a member of my thesis committee and director of the School of Journalism and Broadcasting at Oklahoma State University, I extend my thanks for all his support in my career change. I thank Dr. Harry Heath, another committee member, for passing on the suggestion that led to this study. The Organization of News Ombudsmen, which gave its financial support, deserves a large amount of gratitude. Bob Kierstead, the ombudsman for The Boston Globe, was especially helpful. The editors who participated in this study made the project feasible. I thank Professor Don Reed and Jack Lancaster, the adviser for OSU's student newspaper, for making my stay in Stillwater more enjoyable through our afternoon rounds of golf. Last, but not least, I remain forever grateful to my mother, Joyce E. Lauer. She did a great job rearing three boys and continues to help a number of young people as a high school English teacher in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION. • • . • . .. • . • . 1 Background ..................................• . 1 Call for Accountability........................ 2 Ombudsmen and Credibility...................... 4 Statement 6f Problem................................ 5 Purpose of Study. • • . • . • • . 6 Value of Study. .. .. • . 6 Limitations and Assumptions......................... 7 Summary . ..................... ·.......... • . 8 II. REVIEV OF THE LITERATURE ......... ; . 11 Introductioh........................................ 11 Studies on Number of Ombudsmen...................... 11 Ombudsmen' s Duties.................................. 13 Perceptions of Ombudsmen............................ 16 Debating the Need for Ombudsmen..................... 19 Ombudsmen and Broadcasting.......................... 23 Summary. 24 III. METHODOLOGY......................... ... • . 29 Selection of Survey Sample.......................... 29 Research Instrument................................. 32 Data Collection ••• '.................................. 35 Data Processing and Analysis........................ 36 Limitations and Assumptions......................... 38 Summary . ... ~ . 39 IV. FINDINGS. .. • •. • • . • • . 41 Background. • . • . 41 Consideration of Ombudsmen.......................... 42 Editors' Reasons for Lack of Ombudsmen.............. 44 Sampling of Editors' Comments....................... 46 Editors Are Ombudsmen.......................... 46 A Matter of Economies ..·........................ 48 Other Vays of Fulfilling Ombudsman's Role...... 48 Not Sure or Miscellaneous...................... 49 Negative Effect on Staff Morale................ 50 Responses to Pro and Con Ombudsman Statements......................................... 50 iv Chapter Page Comparison of Editors' Responses.................... 59 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................. 60 Summary . ... ~ . 60 ConcluSions ............ ·',.......... 63 Recommendations for Further Research ... ~............ 65 The Fu tu re? . 65 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. 68 APPENDIXES. 70 APPENDIX A - MEMBERSHIP LIST OF THE ORGANIZATION OF NEVS OMBUDSMEN........................... 71 APPENDIX B - COPIES OF QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTERS. 76 APPENDIX C - NEVSPAPERS REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENTS. 82 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Extent to Which Editors' Newspapers Have Considered Appointing Ombudsmen ••....•..•.....•.... 43 II. Editors' Reasons for Why Their Newspapers Do Not Have an Ombudsman ......................•.... 45 III. Editors' Responses to the Statement: An Ombudsman Can Help Enhance a Newspaper's Credibility .•........................•. 51 IV. Editorsi Responses to the Statement: The Money for an Ombudsman's Position Could Be Better Spent Elsewhere in the News Operation.......................................... 52 v. Editors' Responses to the Statement: An Ombudsman Can Handle Readers' Complaints More Effectively Than an Editor ................... 53 VI. Editors' Respohses to the Statement: The Potential for a Conflict of Interest Exists When an Ombudsman Is Asked to Criticize the Newspaper That Pays His Salary .................... 54 VII. Editors' Responses to the Statement: An Ombudsman, by Criticizing Editors and Reporters, Can Lower Staff Morale •.......•.....•.•. 55 VIII. Editors' Responses to the Statement: An Ombudsman Can Improve the Accuracy of a Newspaper .....................·.................... 56 IX. Editors' Responses to the Statement: An Ombudsman Creates an Unnecessary Layer Between Readers and Editors ....................... 57 X. Editors' Responses to the Statement: An Ombudsman Provides a Public Relations Benefit to a Newspaper............................. 58 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background A computer certainly is not required to keep track of the number of ombudsmen or reader representatives within the newspaper industry in the United States. Vhile Sweden originated the ombudsman concept in 1809 as a means to protect citizens from governmental abuse, it wasn't until 1967 that the first newspaper ombudsman in the United States was appointed in Louisville, Kentucky. The newspaper ombudsman movement generally has failed to catch fire since then. Of the approximate 1,650 daily newspapers in the United States, about 35 have ombudsmen or reader representatives, who respond to complaints from the public about news coverage and critique the newspaper's editorial product. That number has remained fairly steady in the past several years. As of May 1989, the Organization of News Ombudsmen listed 40 official members, representing 28 U.S. daily newspapers and 12 foreign newspapers -- five from Canada, three from England and one each from Sweden, Japan, Spain and Israel.1 Several newspaper ombudsmen in the United States, however, are not members of the organization.2 The author knows of no information source that lists 1 2 all the newspaper ombudsmen in the United States. Therefore, a precise tally is difficult to determine. Appendix A lists the members of the Organization of News Ombudsmen and their newspapers as of May 1989. Ombudsmen, themselves, have recognized that they are a small minority within the journalistic community. "I've said it before: this is not your basic growth industry," Art Nauman, the ombudsman for The Sacramento Bee, was quoted as saying in 1985.3 Not surprisingly, ombudsmen have expressed concern over the general lack of respect they receive, especially considering what appears to be an increased public concern for newspaper credibility. Lou Gelfand, reader representative for the Minneapolis Star & Tribune, expressed his frustration during the 1984 meeting of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, saying, "If newspapers think they have to be responsive and the public thinks they have to be responsive -- then what the hell are they waiting for?"4 Call for Accountability Long before credibility became a journalistic buzzword, the Hutchins Commission ·on Freedom of the Press urged the press to be more accountable through self-criticism and warned that failure to do so would invite government regulation. In its report, the 13-member commission, formed by magazine publisher Henry Luce and composed almost entirely of academicians, wrote: One of the most effective ways of improving the press is blocked by the press itself. By a kind of unwritten law, the press ignores the errors and misrepresentations, the lies and scandals, of which its members are guilty.5 3 Media critic Ben Bagdikian renewed the plea for accountability in 1967, 20 years after the Hutchins Commission's report. While criticizing newsp~pers for "riding a tide complacent in their monopoly status without making basic reforms that they and the readers deserve," Bagdikian, who would later fulfill a stint as an ombudsman for The Washington Post, wrote: Some brave owner, someday, will provide for a community ombudsman on his paper's board, maybe a non-voting one, to be present, t6 speak, to provide a symbol and, with luck, exert public interest in the ultimate fate of the American newspaper. Disclosure of financial interests, a greater openness in making of policy, a place for public representation could do for newspapers what it did for the Stock Exchange post Crash: restore public confidence in the men who stand behind pieces of paper.6 While Bagdikian predicted that a newspaper owner would put a "community ombudsman" on his newspaper's board of directors, Abe Raskin has been credited with providing the impetus for the first newspaper ombudsman. While assistant editor of The New