Old Dog Hires New Trickster

Brazenly ignoring my advice, the New York Times has hired an ombudsman, the respected Time/Life veteran and baseball fanatic Daniel Okrent. Link via Henry Copeland, who asks: "What purpose does an official critic serve today? What kind of two-way street has 18 wheelers going in one direction and a lone tricycle (occasionally!) going the other?"

Comments

[Scott Ott]

I understand your doubts about the utility of an ombudsman, but wait until you hear about Mr. Okrent's Rotisserie Journalism League.

[nm156, getting increasingly le]

Sounds to me like he knows this is a joke, and therefore has decided everyone should get in on the fun.

[tna42084]

Even my college newspaper has an ombudsman so I wouldn't be to concerned. Its like a title with no real meaning. However, I do understand the point and the ombudsman position is quite ridiculous but its nothing to get worked up over.

[Jack]

Please R.C., spill forth your unparalleled God-like wisdom and enlighten us poor benighted souls on what "progress" in this case would mean?

[R. C. Dean]

tna42084 has not yet encountered the use of motion to forestall progress.

Ombudsfolk are great examples of feel-good sound-bite do-nothing projects ("motion") that are used in place of real reform and change ("progress"). Motion is not free - it has an opportunity cost. The NYT is installing an ombudsman, not to drive progress, but to forestall it.

[chs]

Interesting...

[Joe Majsterski]

Jack, just a guess here, but in this context I imagine progress would be accurate reporting.

[Jack]

Joe,

Having an ombudsman on staff isn't incompatible with accurate reporting last I checked. R.C. claims that having an ombudsman will "forestall" progress, implying that the position prevents "progress". Therefore, unless an ombudsman somehow prevents accurate reporting (which I haven't seen proven), "progress" must mean something else.