Journalism as a Conversation

Teaching students some new punctuation marks … for when they really want to write what they mean. (h/t for the find: Dr. Amy Young, Pacific Lutheran University)

The Washington Post’s ombudsman (reader advocate) is leaving and likely won’t be replaced because of continuing budget cuts. Poynter uses the occasion to explore the difficult and controversial role of such public editors. I first learned about them in journalism school in the late-1980s. I could barely pronounce the word “ombudsman,” but I got what the job was supposed to be about: representing readers’ interests, not the newspaper’s, as a kind of in-house critic.

Say a reader calls the newsroom and criticizes subtle but gendered language in a news story. The ombudsman might take a close look at the story, interview the writer and editor and even write an opinion column about his/her findings. Hard work to do objectively but awesome when done well.

The more I’ve thought about this role in the Internet era, the more uncomfortable I’ve become.  My audience research on citizen participation in news suggests ombudsmen may be a relic of a bygone era. These days, every journalist ought to have a trusted relationship with readers. That doesn’t mean you pander to those readers like an obsequious suck-up. It means you take into account the reader’s (or Web user’s) knowledge, experience and expectations. It’s a relationship for the 21^st century, in service of public good.

On the eve of WaPo’s departing ombudsman, I salute such work but offer a challenge to all journalists: What are you contributing to your relationship with your audience?