The fact that they work independently of the newsroom and sometimes even independently of the company (as a contractor) is simply the nature of the public edito

The fact that they work independently of the newsroom and sometimes even independently of the company (as a contractor) is simply the nature of the public editor / ombudsman and how it is set up at pretty much every newspaper that has one. Re: how the public editor at the Times is perceived: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13pubed.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13pubed.html?_r=0. The money quote: "A writer shaken by a conclusion I was reaching told me, if you say that, I'll have to kill myself." I would hope your company's PR person wouldn't make you feel like that. And a broader look at how journalists handle criticism: http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2010/06/why-cant-journalists-handle-public-criticism167.html http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2010/06/why-cant-journalists-hand... but also http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2011/04/theres-no-problem-newsrooms-in-denial-about-rampant-errors115.html http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2011/04/theres-no-problem-newsroo... You can't really avoid having the public editor on the payroll of the organization he or she works for, unless some wealthy donor is prepared to step in and pay for one. That means we always have to be sceptical of where their loyalties lie and their independence, but it doesn't mean they don't have any. Also, the New York Times is one of the only papers in the world that tracks errors internally, so they can easily see which of their journalists are playing fast and loose, and will let them go if necessary. Is it perfect? Obviously not. Are journalists and editors generally really bad at owning up to their mistakes? Yep. But an ombudsman is an attempt to do something about that, not an extension of that culture.