5 ms·

Meta comment: the institutionalized role of the "public editor" as a kind of quasi-independent internal advocate for the interests of the public has fascinated

Meta comment: the institutionalized role of the "public editor" as a kind of quasi-independent internal advocate for the interests of the public has fascinated me for a while. They generally have no real power, but are given a platform and considerable independence, and are supposed to help hold newspapers to their stated interest in informing the public, with an expectation that they will be critical to some degree. So they can write posts like this, which normally would only come from outside sniping, but with better internal access to sources, and an officially sanctioned platform. I've on occasion wondered if it would be beneficial for companies in other fields to adopt such a role. Could Google regain some trust and goodwill if it appointed a "public editor" with a suitably credible background, a degree of independence, and a mandate to advocate for the public interest?

nknighthb 13y ago
"Public editor" is basically a particular incarnation of ombudsman. One thing common to ombudsman roles is that they're powerless and routinely ignored. They're the equivalent of "We are taking this seriously.", a meaningless gesture designed to distract and obfuscate. The people who take such roles are simply pawns.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I think this is a needlessly cynical take on the issue, especially in the context of a news disseminating organization like the NYT. The purpose of the public editor is not necessarily to change anything, but to give some insight into the machinery of the news process. Unlike ombudspersons (yeah, went there), they do not need to be heeded to be effective at their role, which is to give the audience context to evaluate the news.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    The New York Times Public Editor position was explicitly referred to by the New York Times as an ombudsman[1][2], and it was created in response to a massive ethics scandal. The role has nothing to do with giving the public "context". [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/business/media/31PAPE.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/business/media/31PAPE.html [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/us/the-times-chooses-veteran-of-magazines-and-publishing-as-its-first-public-editor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/us/the-times-chooses-veter...
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      Fair enough. I should have said, "The purpose I see them as being useful for," and it's not fair for me to criticize your position on that basis.
- danso 13y ago
  Sorry, but I have to call this out as blanket, misguided and uninformed criticism. I've been a frequent reader of the Times ombudsman in the 10 or so years since it was put in place after the Jayson Blair scandal. Sullivan has been the most incisive, most responsive of all the ombudsmen so far. You're right that the position is toothless...she has no ability to fire people or allocate resources of her own. What she does have in terms of power is getting to say whatever she wants, about anyone at the Times, without fear of being fired. She's like an internal affairs cop (who themselves have limited direct power) but who is guaranteed a spot in print and on web in America's biggest paper. What other companies have such a position? If you're thinking, "X tech company who got hacked and wrote a lovely apology letter about it"...well, then you thoroughly misunderstand the public editor's province. Her equivalent at tech company X would be someone who interviewed the engineers who fucked up and then put their names and quotes into print...not someone who does PR apologetics for the company. She was among the first under the Times masthead to point out that their incoming CEO had some major problems and to say what many were privately thinking. No, she didn't get him fired or removed...but again, that's not her purview. Her role is to raise awareness and stir the pot in a way that most people internally will never do. She is most certainly not a "pawn"
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    > uninformed And yet, your comment provides no relevant information I didn't already possess. Shocking that two people with identical knowledge can reach different conclusions, isn't it?
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    > What she does have in terms of power is getting to say whatever she wants, about anyone at the Times, without fear of being fired. Do you really think a corporation would allow serious injury to come to its reputation especially when its reputation is critical to its business? Do you think if the public editor starting leveling serious critique at the NYT in the vein of FAIR, Media Lens or Chomsky they would retain their position? Do you think the NYT would ever appoint members of those organizations as public editors?
    - 13y ago
danbmil99 13y ago
Interesting idea, but I think public companies just don't have the culture for this level of self-criticism. The job would inevitably become corrupted somehow, subject to spin and influence from the powers within the company. I think what should be happening is that investigative journalists in the financial sector should do a better job of finding sources within public companies, who are willing to leak information about practices and policies that are against the company's publicly stated positions, and/or are hurting shareholders, employees, the environment, and so on. Example: why don't we see detailed leaks about NSA actions at the ISP's, carriers, and large web companies?

nknighthb 13y ago

"Public editor" is basically a particular incarnation of ombudsman. One thing common to ombudsman roles is that they're powerless and routinely ignored. They're the equivalent of "We are taking this seriously.", a meaningless gesture designed to distract and obfuscate. The people who take such roles are simply pawns.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I think this is a needlessly cynical take on the issue, especially in the context of a news disseminating organization like the NYT. The purpose of the public editor is not necessarily to change anything, but to give some insight into the machinery of the news process. Unlike ombudspersons (yeah, went there), they do not need to be heeded to be effective at their role, which is to give the audience context to evaluate the news.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  The New York Times Public Editor position was explicitly referred to by the New York Times as an ombudsman[1][2], and it was created in response to a massive ethics scandal. The role has nothing to do with giving the public "context". [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/business/media/31PAPE.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/business/media/31PAPE.html [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/us/the-times-chooses-veteran-of-magazines-and-publishing-as-its-first-public-editor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/us/the-times-chooses-veter...
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Fair enough. I should have said, "The purpose I see them as being useful for," and it's not fair for me to criticize your position on that basis.
danso 13y ago
Sorry, but I have to call this out as blanket, misguided and uninformed criticism. I've been a frequent reader of the Times ombudsman in the 10 or so years since it was put in place after the Jayson Blair scandal. Sullivan has been the most incisive, most responsive of all the ombudsmen so far. You're right that the position is toothless...she has no ability to fire people or allocate resources of her own. What she does have in terms of power is getting to say whatever she wants, about anyone at the Times, without fear of being fired. She's like an internal affairs cop (who themselves have limited direct power) but who is guaranteed a spot in print and on web in America's biggest paper. What other companies have such a position? If you're thinking, "X tech company who got hacked and wrote a lovely apology letter about it"...well, then you thoroughly misunderstand the public editor's province. Her equivalent at tech company X would be someone who interviewed the engineers who fucked up and then put their names and quotes into print...not someone who does PR apologetics for the company. She was among the first under the Times masthead to point out that their incoming CEO had some major problems and to say what many were privately thinking. No, she didn't get him fired or removed...but again, that's not her purview. Her role is to raise awareness and stir the pot in a way that most people internally will never do. She is most certainly not a "pawn"
- nknighthb 13y ago
  > uninformed And yet, your comment provides no relevant information I didn't already possess. Shocking that two people with identical knowledge can reach different conclusions, isn't it?
- foobarqux 13y ago
  > What she does have in terms of power is getting to say whatever she wants, about anyone at the Times, without fear of being fired. Do you really think a corporation would allow serious injury to come to its reputation especially when its reputation is critical to its business? Do you think if the public editor starting leveling serious critique at the NYT in the vein of FAIR, Media Lens or Chomsky they would retain their position? Do you think the NYT would ever appoint members of those organizations as public editors?
  - 13y ago

danbmil99 13y ago

Interesting idea, but I think public companies just don't have the culture for this level of self-criticism. The job would inevitably become corrupted somehow, subject to spin and influence from the powers within the company. I think what should be happening is that investigative journalists in the financial sector should do a better job of finding sources within public companies, who are willing to leak information about practices and policies that are against the company's publicly stated positions, and/or are hurting shareholders, employees, the environment, and so on. Example: why don't we see detailed leaks about NSA actions at the ISP's, carriers, and large web companies?