10.4185/RLCS-2016-1149en | ISSN 1138 - 5820 | RLCS # 71 | 2016 | |
Ombudsman and active readers. Interaction and journalistic quality
Dolors Palau-Sampio [CV] [ORCID] [GS] School of Philology, Translation and Communication. Universitat de València, UV / University of Valencia, Spain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Translation by CA Martínez-Arcos
The figure of the ombudsman  represents a mechanism for the self-regulation of the news media and responds to the will of transparency and the goal of quality assurance of the information products that are offered to readers. The ombudsman is the explicit embodiment of the medium’s assumption of public accountability and constitutes an instrument to promote trust and credibility. It is not a coincidence that its implementation, in two newspapers of Louisville (Kentucky, USA) -The Courier-Journal and The Louisville Times- in 1967, was the response to a moment of crisis of trust in the media. Since then -but especially after the 1980’s- the presence of the so-called news ombudsman has extended across diverse latitudes. Although the term enjoys wide recognition, its denomination has been adapted to different languages, sometimes with certain nuances about its role: defensor del lector (Spain), public editor reader’s representative, reader advocate, public editor and listening post editor (English-speaking countries), médiateur (France and Belgium), ouvidor (Brazil), provedor (Portugal), difensore civico and avvocato dei lettori (Italy), Leseranwalt (Germany), Læsernes Redaktør (Denmark), leserombudet (Norway), and Lezersredacteur (the Netherlands), among others (Elia, 2007: 33-34).
The reader advocate is present in the most important media around the world, but it is not a universal figure. In fact, this figure does not exist in some prestigious international media, because in some occasions its work becomes uncomfortable (Glasser, 1999; Aznar, 1999; Evers et al., 2010) or expendable in a context of economic crisis, as it happened in The Washington Post, despite the commitment to honest and quality journalism is an investment in the future (White, 2015). On other occasions, although the position remains, the figure is subjected to certain discontinuity, particularly during times of changes of ownership, of the person in charge of this position and even changes in the medium’s management team.
The Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) has 56 regular members from 24 countries. This entity states that the duty of news ombudsmen and ombudswomen or readers’ representatives is to receive and investigate complaints from newspaper readers or television viewers about the accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste in news coverage, and to recommend appropriate remedies or responses to correct or clarify news reports. Some authors who have explored the role of the ombudsman agree on the diversity of his tasks: receive complaints, investigate them and respond to newspaper readers or viewers, but also to mediate the dissemination of journalistic work, correct errors, publish the findings of the most significant cases, and in generic terms, act as a supervisor of the self-regulation of journalists (Bertrand 2000; Bernier, 2003; Goulet, 2004; Evers et al., 2010).
Beyond the general framework of activity, the figure of the ombudsman is not governed by homogeneous patterns. As the ONO points out, “Not two ombudsmen work exactly alike”. The definition and channels of action are influenced by numerous factors, from the characteristics of the medium to the personality of the person who occupies the position, hence the importance of analysing this figure and the development of his activity in order to generate specific knowledge about it.
2. State of the art review: the ombudsman as quality assurance
The role of the ombudsman, as a mediator between the newsroom and readers, is directly linked to the improvement of the quality of the medium. News companies implement this figure to collect complaints from their audience, channel them to the appropriate professionals and to get these complaints handled by an accredited spokesman (Evers et al, 2010; Elia, 2007; Maciá, 2014). This position is not exactly comfortable, since the ombudsman works in the bosom of the editorial structure, trying to maintain his independence from the members of the editorial team while developing a double function. On the one hand, to promote self-regulation, and on the other, to act as a critic of what has been published (Elia, 2007), both by own initiative or upon the request of readers.
In recent decades several studies have looked at the role of the ombudsman, mainly as one of the mechanisms of self-regulation and social responsibility (Aznar, 1999; Eberwein et al., 2011; Maciá-Barber, 2014; Fengler, 2015) and, to a lesser extent, to describe his role in certain countries or media companies, as in the case of Canada, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland (Goulet, 2004; Van Dalen and Deuze, 2006; Agnès, 2008, Béal, 2008; Quixadá, 2010; Bernier, 2011), and to link the role of the ombudsman to the improvement of the standards of quality (Elia, 2007) based on a general review of his tasks. However, there are much less studies that analyse the interaction with readers (Nemeth and Sanders, 1999; Nolan and Marjoribanks, 2011; Evers, 2012).
The existence of the ombudsman “does not determine the ethical commitment of a media company”, even though “it is a factor that can contribute to it” (Several authors, 2013). The degree of customisation of this figure, as well as the elements that strengthen its credibility (work standards, codes of ethics of the medium, prestigious professional experience of the person responsible, etc.) render it a visible guarantor of the pursuit of journalistic quality or, at least, a symbolic actor of fundamental relevance to such claim (Several authors, 2013). The media that have incorporated an ombudsman pursue, in addition to improve quality standards, to increase the awareness of their news professionals about the responsibility of their work, to increase access to readers and to increase their credibility, to manage the complaint process internally and to avoid unnecessary and costly lawsuits (ONO).
Different authors have suggested the duality of a function that can be seen as genuinely linked to social responsibility, in the sense of the ombudsman as a critical voice (public accountability), or a kind of public relations (Roosevelt and Glasser, 1987). The function of the ombudsman has also been influenced by the contributions of Van Dalen and Deuze (2006), who identified the dichotomy between “reader’s advocates” and “newspapers’ ambassadors”, and by Evers (2012), who contrasted it with the figure of the watchdog and the lightning rod. In fact, his mission is not limited exclusively to the ethical sphere but it has a strategic dimension, linked to the management of business risks - a newspaper like The New York Times introduced the figure of the public editor after the plagiarism and fabrication scandal of journalist Jayson Blair-, to ensure credibility (Nolan and Marjoribanks, 2011). Evers points out that when we talk about issues of quality “professional ethics inevitably is a stake, as the concept of ‘journalistic quality’ contains several normative notions as well: reliability, credibility, accuracy and responsibility” (2012: 226). The correlation between quality and credibility has been highlighted by various researchers (Hovland and Weiss, 1951; Schatz and Schulz, 1992; Russ-Mohl, 1994; Metzger et al., 2003; Maier, 2005) and their effects have been confirmed by recent studies from the Pew Research Center, which highlights that the media is not an exception in the equation that links quality loss and reader desertion (Enda and Mitchell, 2013).
Taking into account the globalising character of a complex concept as quality, understood as an “expression of different processes for obtaining and managing information, as a result of the application of standards of impartiality and balance, contrast and plurality”, in addition to the requirement of variety and originality, research, deepening and independence (Gómez Mompart and Palau-Sampio, 2013: 35), we cannot establish a radical distinction between the informative product and the production circumstances which made it possible. In this sense, some studies have clearly identified the negative effects of certain formulas aimed at increasing profitability of the digital editions of important media, in the context of the search for a business model (O’Donnell and McKnight, 2012; Ramírez de la Piscina et al., 2014; Palau-Sampio, 2016). To these signs of the increasing devaluation of quality we have to add the negative perception of news professionals - a 2014 survey revealed that 81% of Spanish journalists perceive a widespread loss of the capital values of the profession (Gómez, Gutiérrez & Palau, 2015) - and the insufficient trust of readers in the press - the 2012 Eurobarometer revealed, among other international indicators, that only 40% of the EU citizens trust the press (Several authors, 2012).
In this context, the figure of the ombudsman becomes the first recipient of complaints and criticism from readers, and at the same time, the authorised channel to highlight certain issues, i.e., to give them visibility in the public debate and offer means of resolution. The analysis of the activity of ombudsmen allows us to learn first-hand about the issues that concern the active readers of the international press the most and to establish who the media respond to their requests and complaints.
3. Hypotheses and methods
This research combines quantitative and qualitative methods to identify issues brought up by readers and to code the features of the texts published by the ombudsman of nine international newspapers of renowned trajectory from eight countries, based on the complaints and suggestions of their active readers, in a sample of articles published from January 2014 to December 2015. Taking into account the varied periodicity of the publications, we decided to choose the first monthly article that appeared in each newspaper. However, some periods of inactivity in the service, either for vacations or the rotation of people in the position, left the final sample of articles in about two hundred (N=197). The following table shows the media and ombudsmen and ombudswomen included in the sample:
Table 1. Media and readers’ representatives
Source: Authors’ own creation
The research is based on the following research hypotheses and questions:
H1: The figure of the ombudsman or reader advocate aims to ensure the quality of the publication, so that his work focuses on issues directly related to it. It derives in the following research question:
PI1: What topics are of concern the model readers – based on their activity and critiques - and are chosen by the ombudsman as representative?
H2: The performance of the ombudsmen and the sample of readers shows, on the one hand, certain mutual complicity since both subjects pursue the journalistic quality of the medium. However, the ombudsmen have a degree of important singularity, which will be analysed based on the following research questions:
RQ2: Who proposes the issues addressed in columns (readers or the ombudsman), and how are they identified in the text?
RQ3: How do the readers (re)presented by the ombudsman show their interest and concern for errors and deviations from good information?
RQ4: What sources are consulted by the ombudsman to back up his response to controversial issues?
RQ5: Which style of action is adopted by the ombudsman to handle complaints?
H3. Ombudsmen maintain an equidistant position regarding the publishing company and readers, but they never call into question the editorial line of the medium or openly criticise substantive aspects of it.
The following aspects will be considered to respond the research questions and test the hypotheses:
Table 2. Categories of analysis
Source: Authors’ own creation
4. Results and discussion
Based on the quality variables identified in previous works (Gómez Mompart, Gutiérrez Lozano and Palau-Sampio, 2013, 2015), concerning the selection of issues by the media, the management of information, treatment and writing, we identified six areas of analysis directly related to quality:
Table 3. General categories of issues addressed by ombudsmen
Source: Authors’ own creation
Errors and ethical or formal aspects represent, respectively, nearly a fifth of all the issues addressed. The first constitute the main theme in The Guardian, which dedicated a dozen of articles to the discussion of complaints about numerical and interpretation errors in a study, derived from the confusion of homophones terms and about the Americanization of English. Although to a lesser extent, La Vanguardia and Toronto Star also bet on these issues. In the case of the newspaper edited in Barcelona, one third of the analysed columns focus on errors and inconsistencies – for example, in the pixilation or not of a photo of police officers in the same issue, claiming that they used the criteria of the agency that provided the material. Josep Rovirosa recognises (“La calidad periodística”, 11.05.2014) that many readers denounce the loss of journalistic quality in recent years . Of the 21 complaints received by the ombudswoman of the Canadian newspaper, more than one quarter are related to the practice of transcribing offensive words in full, which is considered outdated by the audience (14.04.2014); the inaccuracy about the name of the first Chief of Police of Toronto (24.04.2015); and the confusion about two citizens with the same name, but one which is guilty of fraud (“The unfortunate incident of two men with the same name”, 08.06.2015); and even errors in published puzzles (“Crossword lovers cross with Star”, 06.11.2015).
The quality of the participation of readers in the online editions is the fourth most discussed issue, based on the number of complaints received and the reflections of the ombudsman. Although this issue is less important than other issues in quantitative terms, it is a recurring subject in all newspapers - with the exception of A Folha de São Paulo. It is striking, however, that an issue as critical as information sources and their implications is the central topic of only 7% of the analysed columns. Of the news media included in the sample, The New York Times the most sensitive towards these issues.
Table 4. Issues addressed in columns
Source: Authors’ own creation
Figure 1. Distribution by issues addressed
Source: Authors’ own creation
4.2. Handling of complaints
The handling of complaints by the sample of ombudsmen responds to different strategies, ranging from the origin of the issues covered to the identification or not of readers and the direct or indirect reference to their words. Although readers’ suggestions have a substantial weight, it is important to note that the ombudsman have some autonomy to choose the issues to be addressed, which are the main subject of a quarter of all the analysed columns. In this sense, the médiateur of Tamedia imposes his agenda in two-thirds of the articles, as it also the case of Toronto Star, where the ombudswoman, perhaps because she has her own section about corrections, bets above all on free forums on ethical issues and the challenges of news-making, with reference to internal sources and international codes and media. In La Vanguardia and Le Monde the presence of readers as promoters of the interventions of their ombudsmen is a priority.
When it comes to introducing readers, Le Monde chooses to include name and town in a systematic way, in addition to their quotes, which is common also in The Guardian and La Vanguardia. However, the ombudsmen of Tamedia, O Público and A Folha de São Paulo, identify and quote the senders only in exception cases. In the case of the Portuguese newspaper, it talks about ‘public’ readers in two cases: the Secretary of State of Public Administration (02.04.2014) and a group of unidentified politicians (02.03.2015). On one occasion, Minister Edinho Silva is the one who writes to the ombudsman Vera Guimarães of A Folha São Paulo (03.07.2015), to accuse the newspaper of “excluding and omitting words and altering facts”.
Table 5. Origin and identification of complaints
Source: Authors’ own creation
The sources used by ombudsmen to explain their responses differ greatly. While The Guardian and A Folha opt to consult government officials and journalists from the medium - and to a lesser extent opt to resolve the complaints without to resort to them-, the médiateur of Tamedia turns to sources of authority, and legal and ethical texts to support his argument, except in a minority of cases in which he does not uses them. Le Monde, for its part, has adopted a mixed formula that takes into account journalists from the same medium and, to a lesser extent, agents of authority. The combination of different sources occurs in a minority of cases in the three aforementioned newspapers. La Vanguardia is similar in its use of sources, although includes a greater number of external experts than members of the newspaper’s staff, contrary to what happens in O Público. The New York Times offers more contrasting of sources and institutions of authority in the professional or institutional fields, depending on the issue, with the opinions of readers and the authors of the news pieces (in almost all the columns), while El País offers more contrasting of the opinions of the audience and the authors of the news or the management team (in this line, for example, its Deputy director, David Alandete is questioned by the ombudsman in four of the 20 columns). As mentioned, the commitment to freer forums in Toronto Star generatesa predominant space of reflection on open issues, with variety of sources, mostly external, to document the coverage of the covered issues.
Table 6. Sources consulted for the resolution of complaints
Source: Authors’ own creation
The information included by the ombudsmen in their columns to describe active readers is limited to identification data (ID, city of origin) and quotations of their letters. While this information is limited by the filter they impose, it allows readers to distinguish some features of the type of reader that is presented, either directly – the way the complaint is pronounced - or indirectly – the way the complaint is presented. The issues raised by the ombudsman have been classified, due to the absence of more references to readers, under the category “other”. Corrections were also classified in the same section.
The most common profile is that of the responsible reader and with own judgement, which is reflected in almost a third of the columns of the ombudsmen, followed by the inquisitive reader -presented in a fifth of the columns -, the punctilious reader – present in 13% of the cases. The least common profile is the reader that trusts in the authority of the ombudsman to consult or ask for advice (7%).
Le Monde offers the clearest example of a responsible reader, largely sponsored by the model of citation of diverse senders who share different views and shades. It reflects a demanding reader who wants quality and, although sometimes also shows a certain inquisitive or punctilious attitude in the same text, it emphasises the critical character. A Folha de São Paulo tends to present the reader as a person with own judgement, perfectionist not only in the use of language, but also in the criticism of the abuse of “off the record” quotes (02.03.2014) and, very exceptionally, as an extremely obsessive receiver with the so-called political drift of the newspaper. This is the case of a reader who accuses the newspaper of “politicising the horoscope” during the election period, to which the ombudsman responds, after being sarcastic about the matter, that this angry criticism “só revela o grau de irracionalidade e conflagração política” (01.06.2014).
In La Vanguardia and O Público there is a predominant presence of the active reader with own judgement. However, there is also an important presence of the punctilious reader, who in the case of the newspaper edited in Barcelona criticises the lack of sensitivity in an obituary titled “La juez que se dejó a un preso olvidado en la prisión” (14.09.2014). The reader who relies on the authority of the ombudsman is also present in these newspapers as well as in A Folha de São Paulo and the columns of the médiateur of Tamedia. Although to a lesser extent, the provedor of O Público presents an inquisitive reader, who accuses the medium of disseminating rumours instead of fact-based news (06.10.2014), which is contrast with the reader that praises the newspaper for its critical treatment of the Portuguese football team in the World Cup (03.07.2014). Based on the quoting of readers’ questions and complaints, newspapers such as The New York Times and El País present a reader who is inquisitive towards the news coverage, and in particular towards the editorial criteria that justify the publication of texts, opinions and photographs. Less extensive exposure is given to opinions that go against the criteria of the newsroom. And although there is no presence of congratulations or prising towards the intermediation of the ombudsman, the latter does sometimes thanks the positive messages he gets from the audience.
The Guardian offers a more open panoramic view, which features a reader with own judgement, but also gives important weight to the punctilious reader, who demands greater attention to avoid factual mistakes and, although to a lesser extent. Also remarkable is the inquisitorial model, with references to readers who are able to reply with several emails (21.12.2014) or threaten to start a campaign against the newspaper (15.05.2015). The formula of the médiateur of Tamedia and the public editor of Toronto Star only provides details to identify the attitude of readers in a third of the columns. These newspapers depict readers who range from trust in the authority, through ethical questions; the inquisitive reader, who questions the potential conflicts of interest or asks compulsively for a rectification; and the responsible reader, who presents proposals of homogenisation, for example, in the identification of people involved in crimes. The ombudswoman of the Toronto Star stands in an intermediary position that underlines her institutional role, even through forums that propose “games” related to the handling of complaints in the department of corrections, such as “When you where the editor” (10.01.2014) and “Are you smarter than a Star journalist” (04.09.2015). At the same time, it shows its support in favour of the punctilious reader when it criticises, for example, errors in the design of crosswords included in the print edition (“Crossword lovers cross with Star”), and states that “Whatever production issues need to be resolved, the Star cannot let down any of its readers on any of its platforms” (06.11.2015).
Table 7. Type of reader, based on the complaints addressed
Source: Authors’ own creation
Taking into account the previous issues, we proceeded to classify the argumentative styles of the ombudsmen by establishing a relationship between the proposal of issues and their inclusion in the column of the readers’ advocate, the sources used to answer and the type of reader that is targeted. Based on the previous variables we identified three styles of performance: 1) explanatory: looks for answers from journalists and officials to address the complaint; 2) conciliator: presents different positions among readers and the consulted sources to show the different points of view in the debate; and 3) self-oriented: develops a wide reflection on the subject including various citations of authority, in the style of an opinion article.
The most widespread model is the explanatory one, which can be identified in newspapers such as The New York Times, The Guardian, A Folha de São Paulo, El País and La Vanguardia. Their proposals of issues tend to come mostly from readers’ complaints and requests, which are largely addressed by consulting officials and journalists who are competent in the subject matter. The performance of the ombudsmen of Le Monde and Toronto Star would be classified as conciliatory, which advocates more for the in-depth reflection on the issues, which are often raised by readers, in the first case, either by inserting their opinions of those of other sources, as it occurs mostly in the Canadian newspaper, and which serve to enrich the debate. Finally, the performance of the ombudsmen of O Público and La Tribune de Genève-Tamedia can be classified as self-oriented, based on the character of persons in charge, both longstanding and prestigious professionals, with teaching experience, advocating for columns that enjoy great autonomy to propose issues and to introduce citations of authority and personal reflections, similarly to opinion texts.
Source: Authors’ own creation
4.3. Resolution models
The third hypothesis proposes that the ombudsman maintains an equidistant position regarding the publishing company and readers, but never calls into question the editorial line of the medium or openly criticises substantive aspects of it. Based on the analysis of responses, we have classified the balance offered by each of the ombudsmen into the following categories: 1) openly criticises the performance of the medium; 2) recognises the error and the need for amendment; 3) states his desire for improvement in the future; 4) Offers an open reflection; 5) defends the performance of the medium and his fellow professionals.
Table 9. Type of conclusión
Source: Authors’ own creation
The mediators of Le Monde neither present a belligerent attitude, despite the fact that some readers questioned the treatment of political issues and the instability of the newspaper’s management. The médiateur until October 2015, Pascal Galinier, opted for open reflections – based on the principle that says the reader has the last word: “Le médiateur s'autoriserait-il à invoquer Shakespeare: ‘Beaucoup de bruit pour rien’? A l'interrogatif, cela va sans dire... Car la réponse appartient aux lecteurs. Comme toujours” (17.11.2014) - at the end of articles that emulate a debate among readers, which chains short quotes with the response of members of the editorial staff and their intervention, introducing rhetorical questions or transition phrases. His successor maintains the discursive style, but with conclusions that point to future improvements: “Sans trop tarder, une clarification, d'ordre éditorial s'entend, sera nécessaire” (20.11.2015) and the announcement of the organisation of forums with readers who want to know about the coverage of the election campaign (21.12. 2015).
The model of the médiateur of La Tribune de Genève-Tamedia, Daniel Cornu, tends inevitably to open reflections, not only because he bets on addressing issues that come, in few times, from readers’ complaints and, therefore, do not affect the media group - some columns refer to the Washington Post, The New York Times and Rolling Stone- but also because when it does so, it opts for a general consideration: “Tout en précisant qu’une déclaration officielle, en soi, n’exempte pas le journaliste d’une réflexion éthique en situation et au regard des normes déontologiques de son métier” (3.03.2014). A fraction of his interventions constitutes a defence of the medium’s journalists – “Les rédactions lémaniques de Tamedia y sont exposées autant que d’autres. Malgré cela, le médiateur n’en voit aucune qui ne s’efforce à un équilibre raisonnable, acceptable par l’ensemble des lecteurs” (4.08.2014) - or his own honour - “Une caution? Pour le coup, c’est l’entendement du médiateur qui se trouve dépassé” (2.7.2015).
Like the previous two, the provider of O Público tendsto prioritise the in-depth reflection in most of his columns, but also to defend the actions of the medium, regardless of some criticism that considers these actions to be weak or unjustified. He agrees that some aspects can be improved, but openly disagrees on the few cases in which there is clear a criticism against the newspaper, like when he affirms that the newspaper should have the freedom to cover the victory of Syriza in Greece over the hospital emergencies in Portugal with the balance that the newsroom considers to be professionally appropriate (16.02.2015).
The readers’ advocate of La Vanguardia is characterised for its accommodationist style, which aims to have an impact on the improvement of quality and rarely comes to objectively y directly criticise the newspaper, except when, for example, a researcher complains his biomedical discovery has been trivialised (09.11.2014). The advocate has no problem, when he sees appropriate, to recognise errors and, consequently, to accept his obligation to rectify them, also in the digital edition, in which –he explains– there is no errata sheet (12.10.2014).
The two ombudsmen of A Folha de São Paulo show a conciliatory attitude in general terms, but without renouncing to the defence of the actions of their medium, even when a mistake is acknowledged and the need for amendment is accepted and when they receive open and strong criticism. Thus, for example, Vera Guimarães, after pointing out that the politics editor has recognised that it is an error to use put inverted commas around the term “jovens liberais” - although without the intention of disqualifying the people affected by it - explains that they have received threats on social networks and concludes that: “Presionar o jornal é regra do jogo democrático. Ameaçar a integridade do profesional é coisa de fascista, não de liberal” (01.02.2015). The same ombudswoman defends the “a soberania do direito de opinião” from the anger of the Jewish community towards an opinion column by Ricardo Melo, who claims that “Israel es una aberración; los judíos no” and advocates for the construction of a single State, where Arabs and Jews live together in harmony. On another occasion (01.03.2015), under the title “Teoria conspiratória nº 8.667”, Vera Guimarães states that: “Una das partes mais difíceis da função de ombudsman é separar o joio do trigo nas mensagens que recebe. Por joio entendam-se as reclamações dos militantes a soldo. O trigo são os leitores reais”.
The modes of resolution adopted by the ombudswoman of the Toronto Star highlight her role as a defender of journalism, not so much because she aligns herself with the allegations of the medium’s journalists (there presence of issues raised by readers her is lower than in other media) but because the conciliatory content of her editorials tries to strengthen the role played by the medium and its newsroom and to open avenues of improvement based on the reflection on sensitive issues. This does not prevent the ombudswoman from censuring the newspaper in some cases, like in an example of racial discrimination (“Hurtful stereotypes don’t belong in Toronto Star”, 08.05.2015). In her work as mediator she even closes ranks with the newspaper’s decision of deleting comments in its online edition, trying not to scare away readers from her column when responding to the complaints raised: “The Star well understands this and has made clear that shutting down comments on website articles, it is no shutting out conversation and reader engagement” (18.12.2015).
According to this study, the two newspapers that, in quantitative terms, embrace criticism and the accept the need for amendment the most are The New York Times and El País. However, the ombudsman of the American newspaper reflects more strength in some of its criticisms, like when he censors the confusion between news and opinions (“An Uneasy Mix of News and Opinion”, 10.01.2015), or when he defines the limits of the agenda of the newspaper: “The upscale doughnut and the penthouse apartment –lofty as they may be- have nothing to do with The Time’s highest purpose” (08.11.2014).
In the case of El País, the most explicit criticism responds to an omission in a news report on a demonstration which took place on the occasion of the Prince of Asturias Awards: “Fue un error de valoración el no hacer referencia a la tradicional manifestación que acompaña a los premios (…) Efectivamente, las agencias, y otros medios, sí informaron de la concentración” (02.11.2014). The rest of the times, the ombudsman tries to explain the production process that led to a particular edition, without questioning the medium’s editorial criteria. This occurs on several occasions when the ombudsman addresses complaints about news concerning the Podemos political party. The ombudsman of El País analyses, in a case by case basis, the complaints about the party and its leaders, and even amends a specific coverage (for example, when the resume of Podemos’s leader, Juan Carlos Monedero, is questioned: “Llevar el tema a portada era muy arriesgado. La única forma de atenuar el error hubiera sido publicar adecuadamente la puntualización y la carta de la Universidad de Puebla. Lamentablemente, no se hizo”, 01.02.2015). However, the ombudsman does not offer in-depth explanations about the editorial line of the newspaper.
Figure 2. Type of resolutions adopted by ombudsmen
In contrast, The New York Times adopts a different position. Its ombudswoman addresses, in two editorials, the recurrent scandal caused by Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. The ombudswoman expresses her agreement with readers’ open complaints against the newspaper’s critical position to cover this issue. She even warns on two occasions of the need for vigilance and amendment: “There are lessons to be learned from this episode. As The Times continues to cover Mrs. Clinton into 2016, it will be dealing with dozens of dust-ups like this one (...). Attacks on the reporting will come no matter what. “But The Times can do itself - and its readers - a lot of good by making sure that every story is airtight: solidly sourced, written with particular clarity and impartiality, and edited with a prosecutorial eye” (07.03.2015). Despite the warning, readers’ criticism increased, so that another editorial (“The Tortured Tale of Hillary Clinton and The Times”, 01.08.2015) insisted on her stance, defending her work as the readers’ advocate: “Times readers (and on their behalf, I, too) will be watching and evaluating that over the next months. No one should expect a free ride for Mrs. Clinton. But she certainly deserves a fair shake”.
The figure of the ombudsman constitutes one of the tools for social responsibility available to the press, hence its importance as an instrument to ensure transparency, independence and quality of contents. However, it is far from being universal or immune to business uncertainty. The importance of the ombudsman has been reflected in various publications, however, there is limited work on the real interaction between the ombudsman and the active readers. The development of this work involves assuming the limitation of access, exclusively, to complaints that the ombudsman decides to make public in his columns and to the particular way of doing it.
The findings of this study highlight the centrality of journalistic quality in the debate, but also the diplomacy with which many of the issues are addressed, more with an attitude of defence or justification than with a real will to get to the bottom and admit the causes of failures or errors in news coverage to readers. In this sense, although the content and editorial aspects and the ethical issues account for half of the questions addressed by ombudsmen, the most dominant complaint resolution models moderate the response of the ombudsman to the criticisms that may question the editorial principles of the medium.
However, the image of the active readers outlined by the readers’ advocates is far from being mostly hostile to the medium. There is a predominance of the reader with own judgement, i.e. a reader who provides complementary views that enrich the debate, against the inquisitive reader, who demands explanations with rudeness, and the punctilious and extremely perfectionist reader, particularly in formal issues and aspects related to written expression. The role played by the ombudsman faces limitations imposed by his unusual position between the newsroom and readers, its trust-based position in the management team, with the ability to ask for explanations to journalists and editorial positions, and to guide models of responsibility. The skills of the ombudsman are more in the field of volunteerism than on real action, since he has no punitive powers. This circumstance is also evident in the styles of performance, which make the explanatory model the most frequently used, and to a lesser extent the conciliatory and self-oriented styles.
Facing the development of future research, a longitudinal study or comparison of the work of various ombudsman in a same way could contribute to deepen the knowledge of this figure.
 Ombudsman is a Scandinavian term that resulted from the fusion of the words ombud (representative) and man (person). It first appeared in Sweden’s 1809 constitution to refer –in a country exhausted by war and bad crops – to the people’s advocate, appointed by the Parliament to guarantee the General and individual rights (Nilsson, 1986) call.
 Died on 11 June 2016.
 The médiateur of Tribune de Genève is responsible for this task in all the French-language newspapers of the Tamedia Group.
 Precisely during his deposition, he reviewed the book edited by the authors of this article (Gómez Mompart, Gutiérrez Lozano, Palau Sampio, 2013), emphasising the difficulties to achieve professional excellence and highlighting the complexity of its definition, but also recognising -quoting the researchers- that any journalist can easily intuit when and why a news report or the treatment of a subject has or not journalistic quality.
Agnès, Y. (2008). “Les médiateurs de presse en France”. Les Cahiers du journalisme, v. 18, n. 8, pp. 34-46.
Aznar, H. (1999). Comunicación responsable. Deontología y autorregulación de los medios. Barcelona: Ariel Comunicación.
Béal, F. (2008). Médiateurs de presse ou press ombudsman. La presse en quête de crédibilité a-t-elle trouvé son Zorro? Paris: FPH-Alliance internationale de journalistes.
Bernier, M.-F. (2011). “La crédibilité de médiateurs de presse en France chez les journalistes du Monde, de RFI et de France 3”. Les Cahiers du journalisme, v. 22/23, pp. 200-215. http://www.crej.ca/publications/credibilitemediateurs.pdf
Bertrand, C.-J. (2000). Media ethics and accountability systems. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Eberwein, T; Fengler, S; Lauk, E. & Leppik-Bork, T (Eds) (2011). Mapping Media Accountability in Europe and Beyond. Cologne: Herbert von Halem.
Elia, C. (2007). Gli ombudsman dei giornali come strumento di gestione della qualità giornalistica. PhD Tesis, Università della Svizzera italiana. https://doc.rero.ch/record/7972/files/2007COM006.pdf
Ettema, J. S., & Glasser, T. L. (1987). “Public accountability or public relations? Newspaper ombudsmen define their role”. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, v. 64, pp. 3-11.
Evers, H. (2012). “The news ombudsman: Lightning rod or watchdog?”. Central European Journal of Communication, v. 5, n. 9, pp. 224-242. http://cejc.w HYPERLINK "http://cejc.wuwr.pl/preview/6739"uwr.pl/preview/6739
Evers, H.J.; Groenhart, H.P. & Van Groesen, J. (2010). The News Ombudsman: Watchdog or Decoy? Diemen: AMB.
Fengler, S. et al. (2015). “How effective is media self-regulation? Results from a comparative survey of European journalists”. European Journal of Communication v. 30, n. 3, pp. 249-266. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323114561 HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323114561009"009
Glasser, Th. L. (1999). “L'ombudsman de presse aux Etats-Unis”. En: Bertrand, C.-J. (Ed.). L'Arsenal démocratique: Médias, déontologie et M*A*R*S. Paris: Economica, pp. 277-284.
Gómez Mompart, J.Ll.; Gutiérrez Lozano, J.F. & Palau-Sampio, D. (Eds.) (2013). La calidad periodística. Teorías, investigaciones y sugerencias profesionales. Barcelona, Castellón y Valencia: UAB/ UJI / UPF / UV.
Gómez Mompart, J. Ll. & Palau-Sampio, D. (2013). “El reto de la excelencia: indicadores para medir la calidad periodística”. En: Gómez Mompart, J.Ll.; Gutiérrez Lozano, J.F. & Palau-Sampio, D. (Eds.). La calidad periodística. Teorías, investigaciones y sugerencias profesionales. Barcelona, Castellón y Valencia: UAB/ UJI / UPF / UV, pp. 17-38.
Gómez Mompart, J.Ll.; Gutiérrez Lozano, J.F. & Palau-Sampio, D. (2015). Los periodistas españoles y la pérdida de la calidad de la información: el juicio professional, Comunicar, 45, pp. 143-150. Doi: 10.3916/C45-2015-1 HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C45-2015-15"5
Goulet, V. (2004). “Le médiateur de la rédaction de France 2. L’institutionnalisation d’un public idéal”. Questions de communication, v. 5, pp. 281-299.
Hartung, B.; JaCoby, A. & Dozier, D. M. (1988). “Readers' perceptions of purpose of newspaper ombudsman program”. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, v. 65, n. 4, pp.914-919. Doi: 10.1177/1077699088065 HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500412"0 HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500412"0412
Hovland, C. I. & Weiss, W. (1951). “The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness”. Public opinion quarterly, v. 15, n. 4, pp. 635-650.
Maciá-Barber, C. (2014). “How the News Ombudsmen Help to Create Ethical and Responsible News Organisations”. In: Wyatt, W. N. (Ed). The Ethics of Journalism: Individual, Institutional and Cultural Influence. London: IB Tauris in association with Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, pp. 107-123.
Maier, S. R. (2005). “Accuracy matters: A cross-market assessment of newspaper error and credibility”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, v. 82, n. 3, pp. 533-551.
Nemeth, N., & Sanders, C. (1999). Ombudsmen's interactions with public through columns. Newspaper Research Journal, v. 20, n.1, pp. 29-42.
Nilsson, P.-E. (1986). “El Ombudsman, Defensor del Pueblo o qué”. In: Fix-Zamudio, H. La Defensoría de los Derechos Universitarios de la UNAM y la institución del Ombudsman en Suecia. México: UNAM, pp. 9-21.
Nolan, D. & Marjoribanks, T. (2011) “‘Public editors’ and media governance at The Guardian and The New York Times”. Journalism Practice, v. 5, n. 1, pp. 3-17.
O’Donnell, P.; Mcknight, D. & Este, J. (2012). Journalism at the speed of bytes. Australian newspapers in the 21st century. Sydney: Walkley Foundation.
Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO). http://newsombudsmen.org/
Palau-Sampio, D. (2016). “Reference press metamorphosis in the digital context: clickbait and tabloid strategies in Elpais.com”. Communication & Society, v. 29, n. 2.
Quixadá, C. (2010). Newspaper Ombudsmanship in Canada: The Rise and Fall of an Accountability System, Tesis de Máster. Carleton University.
Ramírez de la Piscina, T.; González Gorosarri, M.; Aiestaran, A.; Zabalondo, B & Agirre, A. (2014). “Periodismo de calidad en tiempos de crisis: Un análisis de la evolución de la prensa europea de referencia (2001-2012)”. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, v. 69, pp. 248-274. Doi: 10.4185/RLCS-2014- HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2014-1011"1011
Ruß-Mohl, S. (1994). Der I-Faktor. Qualitätssicherung im amerikanischen Journalismus. Modell für Europa [The I-Factor. Quality assurance in American Journalism]. Zurich: Edition Interfrom.
Schatz, H. & Schulz, W. (1992). “Qualität von Fernsehprogrammen. Kriterien und Methoden zur Beurteilung von Programmqualität [Quality of TV programmes. Criteria and methods for evaluating programme quality]”. Media Perspektiven, v. 11, pp. 690- 712.
Several authors (2013). “Los mecanismos tradicionales de autorregulación”, Documento de trabajo. Proyecto TRIP, Transparencia y Rendimiento de Cuentas de en la Información Periodística. GRP.
Repositorio Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 5-15.
Standard Eurobarometer (2012). “Media use in the European Union”. Standard Eurobarometer, 78, Autumn 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb78/eb78_first_en.pdf
Van Dalen, A. & Deuze, M. (2006). “Readers’ advocates or newspapers’ ambassadors? Newspaper ombudsmen in the Netherlands”. European journal of communication, v. 21, n. 4, pp. 457-475. Doi: 10.117 HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323106070011"7/02673231060 HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323106070011"70011
White, A (Ed.) (2015). The trust factor. An EJN Review of Journalism and Self-regulation. London: Ethical Journalism Network.
Paul A. (2014): Looking at, with, and through YouTube(TM). Soukup, Communication Research Trends33.3 (2014): 3-3
How to cite this article in bibliographies / References
D Palau-Sampio, JF Gutiérrez-Lozano, JL Gómez-Mompart (2016): “Ombudsman and active readers. Interaction concerning journalistic quality “A day with the candidate”. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71, pp. 1.344 to 1.364.
Article received on 18 November 2016. Accepted on 14 December.