Boo-Freakity-Hoo

The Sacramento Bee's pressure-driven assignment of an editor to keep track of political columnist/blogger Daniel Weintraub has been a minor cause celebre in blog-world the last couple of days. What's interesting is to watch what happens when a monopolist daily newspaper is suddenly inundated with irate e-mails from strangers.

Here's what Stephanie Christensen, the administrative assistant to Sac Bee Ombudsman Tony Marcano (yes, this paper is so flush that even its ombudsman has an administrative assistant), wrote to blogger (and newspaper veteran) Howard Owens:

Many other readers have voiced their opinions to The Bee without name calling.

What was the name calling? "All I did was suggest they were spineless nitwits," Owens insists.

There's more. A reader of Daniel Drezner elicited this response from Ombudsman Marcano:

My policy is to ignore readers who feel it necessary to resort to insults. There will be no further responses from this office to your e-mails.

The insult? "When did the Bee turn so gutless?"

It's a comfy business indeed that feels confident enough to chide dissatisfied customers for bad manners. But then, as I argued in the August/September Reason, an organization with an ombudsmen is almost always one that has a customer service problem. Not to mention staffing bloat.

Comments

[cj]

Certainly here in the heartland (KCMO), the ombudsman is nothing more than a defensive hack for the newspaper. Oh, sure, they'll decry the misspellings and the minor instances of lack-of-attribution -- but do they EVER address substantive issues such as perceived biases in the paper? lack of investigative wherewithall? Sadly, not.

I fear, in many cases, the ombudsman merely represents a monthly, quarter-page "time off" for the editorial staff.

But, hey, if THEY believe it....

[Matt Welch]

I'd like to point out one thing useful about having ombudsmen & administrative assistants -- at least these ones seem to answer e-mails. I'm pretty bad on that count, and I'm sure editors & prominent newspaper writers are hopelessly swamped. I've often wondered how much physical time it would take if a newspaper responded to every response-seeking communication from readers.... That has always seemed to me one of the best arguments for ombuds-type people (and also for extensive public forums where people can post & argue about stuff).

[Steve Miller]

Interesting how the discussion was cordial and informative until our resident "liberal" had to come along and change the whole tone of the thread with mean spirited hollow banter. So predictably wonderful.

[JDM]

"I've always suspected that giving a shit about the problems of people who aren't white, wealthy ans suburban was a lefty type of thing, but have often been told otherwise. Thanks for clearing that up."

You haven't suspected it, joe, you've been convinced of it. You've absorbed it so completly into your worldview that allowing it to be falsified would crush you as completely as an empty beer can under 10 ton press. It's a matter of conjecture to say exactly which words you'd then be muttering to yourself over and over during the few short years your physical being took to mimic the collapse of your psychic being, as you sat withering in one of your formerly beloved government institutions, but I'd bet: "They lied to me."

[amr]

For the Minneapolis Strib, a lot of times the *reader's representative*'s column is dedicated to how judges voted in big cases, because that often gets cut from stories, I guess. I'd say our guy has a 30 or 40% rate of agreeing with reader's complaints, of those he lists. I find it more valuable to get a glimpse of what goes on in the pressrooms.

[joe]

Actually, reading this blog on a regular basis has convinced me that there actually are non-leftists whose politics include a healthy dose of compassion for the downtrodden. But when someone attributes paying an interest in the situation of the less fortunate as evidence of liberal bias...yeah, I'm going to call them on it.

[Floyd McWilliams]

"But when someone attributes paying an interest in the situation of the less fortunate as evidence of liberal bias...yeah, I'm going to call them on it."

Coerced charity is an abomination -- except for the liberal, who believes that all that is not prohibited must be compulsory.

[joe]

Coerced charity? Jacoby was told to write stories. No money, no laws, just making people aware of the situation.

"I'm just as deeply concerned about the well being of the disadvantaged, how dare you suggest I'm not? Oh, and it's wrong to talk or write about the fact that people are hurting. But I'm deeply concerned. Actually, it's exactly this deep concern that leads me to support the elimination of every program that has ever been of material assistance to poor people."

Uh huh.

[Xrlq]

"Coerced charity is an abomination -- except for the liberal, who believes that all that is not prohibited must be compulsory."

"Choice" - um, I mean, abortion - being the one exception. I'm sure that will change, eventually - just as soon as they can come up with a neat formula to determine when an abortion should be prohibited and when it should be required.

[JDM]

"But when someone attributes paying an interest in the situation of the less fortunate as evidence of liberal bias...yeah, I'm going to call them on it."

He wasn't talking about paying an interest in the downtrodden. He was talking about the reeducation the paper was attempting to put the guy through. It's part of the same bias you are showing now. "He isn't liberal enough. He must not care." - which IS a lefty thing. Thanks for bearing that out.

[joe]

Sending a vteran newspaperman out, on his own, to collect information and report on it is "reeducation."

Okay.

[Gene 6-Pack]

If you really want amusement, try twitting the Bee for their support a few years ago of the closing of Rancho Seco nuclear power plant.
Wonder what a difference it would have made in the rolling blackouts and astronomical electricity prices if California had that 900 megawatts on line these past few years?
In a sense, Davis is gettiing the boot because the Bee closed Rancho Seco.

[Gonzo]

Matt, your post has inspired me to send my own e-mail to the ombudsman, which I'll follow with a real paper letter via snail mail. Accountability is a wonderful thing.

[JDM]

There is no way to construe the ombudsman's comment so that it is not part and parcel of the leftist notion that conservatives simply have no concern for the poor, and that white guilt liberalism represents all that is good in the world. Absolutely none.

[joe]

There is no way to construe JDM's comment so that it is not an admission that concern about the less fortunate is the exclusive domain of "white guilt liberals." Tell me, why is sending someone to write about poor people, single mothers, and AIDS patients proof of leftist bias? Don't free market conservatives care about these issues?

[Patrick Carroll]

I got an email from Tony Marcano himself!

>From: Ombudsman
>To: 'patrick carroll'
>Subject: RE: Daniel Weintraub
>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:25:14 -0700
>
>Dear Mr. Carroll,
>I'm forwarding your comments to the "Your Views" section of the Bee. For the
>record, your statement that I have seen fit to cave in to pressure is
>incorrect. The decision to edit Weintraub's blog was made by the executive
>editor and the editorial page editor.
>
>Tony Marcano
>Ombudsman
>The Sacramento Bee
>
I think it's interesting that he chose to distance himself from my accusation that the Bee had caved in to pressure from the Latino caucus, even though the "you" in my original email was the impersonal "you" referring to the Bee in general. At least now we know the rot goes all the way to the top.

[Xiaoding]

"Don't free market conservatives care about these issues?"

No, not really. the free market never has,and never will address these issues. Because it's not an economic problem, it's a social problem. Crying "free market" is just a dodge. This is the problem the right has with it's worldview. The lefts problem is that they deny individual rights, and would thus destroy the economic systems ability to produce the wealth we need to solve the social problems. You all suck. 🙂

[JDM]

"Tell me, why is sending someone to write about poor people, single mothers, and AIDS patients proof of leftist bias?"

Because he was the paper's conservative columnist. Tell me how sending a black man out to fetch some watermelon for himself isn't evidence of a racial bias.

You're acting as if the comment was made in a vacuum, which is mind boggling considering you're doing it to argue that the bias that you're claiming doesn't exist is accurate! You've acheived some new level of intellectual duplicity that I don't even know the name for. I'll call it "stupidity."

[Tommy_Grand]

I will defend joe's position in one respect. Mr. Thomas' [alleged] recommendation that Mr. Jacoby spend 3-4 months "interviewing the homeless, welfare mothers, AIDS patients, etc." is not *necessarily* evidence that Thomas is biased against all thinkers conservative. While Thomas clearly believes that Jacoby requires sensitivity training, Thomas might believe that other conservatives are adaquately informed about, and sensitive to, the plight and afflictions of those less fortunate. Maybe Thomas is biased but, on basis if this evidence, such a determination seems premature.

[Sam I Was]

This is yet one more example of the way the "blogosphere" has become much like the NAACP -- hypersensitive, always looking to be offended, always aiming to get itself into a tizzy over the smallest perceived slight. And "Instapundit" would be the Rev. Jesse Jackson of this metaphorical world.

I mean, geez, OK -- some newspaper is requiring its content to be edited before presentation to the public. Big friggin deal.

For all its jabs at the "arrogance" of big media, the blogging community has become one of the most self-righteous collections of folks I've ever come across. Some of them don't even realize how ridiculous they look -- that's the funniest part.

[JDM]

It may not be proof, but it is certainly strong evidence. The man is an ombudsman for a major newspaper. I'm sure he knows the ins and outs of the media bias issue. If he took the idea seriously, he wouldn't show such contempt for the people it's his job to placate by repeating a cliche about the paper's one conservative op-ed writer. He doesn't see anything wrong with the cliche, because he thinks it is unquestionably true.

Yes, a person in a vacuum could say that about a conservative writer and mean something else, the ombudsman for a newspaper cannot.

I do recognize that that particular part of the argument is based on the allegations of someone professing to be a Valkyrie...

joe's bias, however, is unquestionable by his own line of argumentation here, however accurate the report from Valhalla.

[Matt Welch]

Sam -- Whatever one thinks of the blogger reaction to this (which, as usual, was varied, and included some over-the-top howling); I don't think in general that people were "taking offensive" and some "perceived slight." I pointed these two items out because I found them *funny*, and fairly typical of ombudsman/gatekeeper behavior, a subject I've written about frequently in the past (including long before I would ever dare mouth the dreadful word "blogger").

Personally, I don't think a newspaper assigning an editor to a blog is a big deal at all. Though doing it to an *opinion* columnist, based on complaints about an opinionated assertion that drew the hackles of interest groups within and without the paper, strikes me as a poor way to go about it.

[Brian Jones]

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Ombudsman has been a must-miss for me since the day he responded to reader complaints regarding a disturbing photo by agreeing that it was gratuitous and apologizing. Oh, and the photo was also included on that column.

[Reginleif the Valkyrie]

In 2000, the Boston Globe suspended its token in-house conservative op-ed writer, Jeff Jacoby, for four months. Allegedly this was for an act of "plagiarism," but, suspiciously, those four months were the last ones before a presidential election. (Commentary by Nat Hentoff and others here.

The petulant and elitist Jack Thomas, who was then the Globe's ombudsman, wrote a column defending the decision to squelch Jacoby. He dismissed complaints of unfairness by quoting the paper's editors as saying that the emails they'd received had the "tone of right-wing rhetoric" (which, of course, obviously made their complaints invalid). He then sneered that Jacoby should spend the three or four months doing "real" reporting - that is, interviewing the homeless, welfare mothers, AIDS patients, etc. Nope, no bias there, folks.

For the record, Thomas (who has since been replaced by Christine Chinlund as ombudsman) wrote an equally whiny column this summer chastising Americans who hate France, and raving about all the wonderful things France has given us, like Lafayette and the Statue of Liberty. The question "What have they done for us lately?" didn't come up.

He also once wrote a "Living" section feature story about Providence, RI entitled, "It's still Palookaville" - in other words, it was no match for the grandeuuuur of Boston. (This was years before Providence's recent urban renewal, although I doubt that would have made a difference to Thomas.) IIRC, a lot of Globe subscribers in Rhode Island canceled their subscriptions.

Pretty sad when your "readers' representative" is just as offensively out of touch as the rest of the staff.

[Bill Peschel]

I'm very disappointed in the Sac Bee. I used to work for a McClatchy newspaper, and found them to be an outstanding chain to work for (much, much better than the family that used to own the newspaper). The Sac Bee is supposed to be the "flagship" newspaper, who is supposed to provide a shining example of journalistic behavior for the rest of the chain. Instead, they act like a downmarket, petulent cousin of the New York Times.

[mojo]

The Bee's a rag. Charges twice what the SF Chron does (.50 vs .25), is stuffed to the gills with advertising, and has the lamest political reporting imaginable.

Now the ombudsman can't take the heat?

Maybe they need an ombudsman to handle the ombudsman's complaints...

[joe]

"He then sneered that Jacoby should spend the three or four months doing "real" reporting ? that is, interviewing the homeless, welfare mothers, AIDS patients, etc. Nope, no bias there, folks."

I've always suspected that giving a shit about the problems of people who aren't white, wealthy ans suburban was a lefty type of thing, but have often been told otherwise. Thanks for clearing that up.

[BoiFromTroy]

Since the Bee has changed its web-editorial policy, they need to update the California Insider page, at a minimum. The still link to Weintraub's article "Why a Blog?" where he states:

"Blogs by their nature are more spontaneous than traditional commentary. While I will strive as always to keep the facts accurate, the opinions I express might be more apt to evolve over time, as more information becomes available."

...and...

"And while I am part of the dreaded mainstream media, my opinions are my own, frequently at odds with those expressed on the editorial pages of my employer. I have always been something of a contrarian. Now I will be doing all those things online, more frequently than before."

These comments lead the reader to believe that he is expressing his unfiltered opinions through this online medium. Nowhere does the Bee's Insider page link the Marcano statement or mention that its "unedited blog" policy has changed.

[politicaobscura]

Yes, the Jack Thomas reign as ombudsman at the Boston Globe was a depressing low. For his years there, he was the worst ombudsman in the nation, a true knee-jerk defender of the biases of his superiors. Now it's back to the "typical" Boston Globe ombudsman...terribly concerned about spelling!

[Tommy_Grand]

"I've always suspected that giving a shit about the problems of people who aren't white, wealthy ans suburban was a lefty type of thing..."

I've always suspected that *ONLY* giving a shit about the problems of people who aren't white, wealthy, or suburban was a lefty type of thing.

[Eddgra Fallin]

"I've always suspected that giving a shit about the problems of people who aren't white, wealthy ans suburban was a lefty type of thing, but have often been told otherwise. Thanks for clearing that up."

Yeah, because we know lefties are the only ones who care about anyone. What an asshole!

[Amy Alkon]

I think ombudsman can't take the heat -- especially when it's directed at them. I complained to the "public editor" at The Oregonian about a piece he wrote. Ironically, it was about newspapers misleading coverage of rape, and it was my contention that his piece included wildly misleading (and completely wrong) use of statistics. Surprise, surprise, he never wrote back. Inspired by this discussion, I've just forwarded my unanswered e-mail to him again, asking if he is indeed the public editor, in charge of responding to reader complaints about the paper, why he doesn't respond to reader complaints about his own work. Will the groundhog emerge or stay in his hole? Place your bets here.

[Amy Alkon]

PS I didn't include a link the article because it's now only available for $1.95, not because *I* have anything to hide.

[Eddgra Fallin]

"I've always suspected that *ONLY* giving a shit about the problems of people who aren't white, wealthy, or suburban was a lefty type of thing."

With noted exceptions for Iraqi torture victims, of course.

[Kevin Shaum]

I've never been involved in the news business, so perhaps my view of the situation is naive, but...

It seems to me that the ombudsman's nominal duties -- listening to reader feedback, evaluating whether the paper was right or wrong, making whatever changes such judgments imply -- is properly the job of the managing editor. The very existence of an ombudsman -- the delegation of these tasks to someone with no authority of consequence, and a mandate to rationalize problems rather than correct them -- is an indication that the managing editor does not take the readers' views seriously enough to handle the task himself.

[David Radulski]

Just out of curiosity, who reviews Mr. Marcano's work prior to publication?

[b]

I've always suspected that giving a shit about the problems of people who aren't white, wealthy ans suburban was a lefty type of thing, but have often been told otherwise. Thanks for clearing that up.

I've always suspected that lefty "compassion" consisted entirely of having sob sessions with "victims" without coming up with any solutions to the larger issues involved. Thanks for clearing that up.

[timekeeper]

For those who support the decision of the Bee, ask yourself this: would your reaction be the same if they slapped an editor on him for a comment he made that was critical of the anti-abortion lobby?

[Sam I Was]

Timekeeper... Speaking for myself: Yes, my reaction would be the same. Though I don't necessarily actively "support" the decision of the Bee -- it's more that I don't give a flying flip.

But then, "blogging" isn't sacrosanct to me, like it seems to be to so many others.

Matt... Thank you for the reasoned response, and the clarification of your view.

[Ong Brandon]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://organize-digital-photo.online-photo-print.com
DATE: 01/20/2004 04:59:07
Don't give up, you are close.