Times answers readers' call for accountability

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 8/15/03 | Mike King

[optimistically_conservative]

Within the rarified ranks of the nation's public editors -- you can count us on a full complement of toes and fingers, with a few extra digits for good measure -- a major player is about to arrive.

After years of contending such a position was not necessary, The New York Times announced last week it is about to hire its first public editor. The search is on, the Times said, for the right person to perform the job on a one-year, "experimental" basis.

Thank you, Jayson Blair, for the Times' epiphany on the road to renewed credibility. It couldn't come at a more opportune time.

The Times is still reeling from the Blair malpractice case and the corresponding failure of the paper's management to deal effectively with it -- before and after the fact. But The New York Times is still a news organization without peer, and, with a new editor and the promise of more openness to readers, it will right itself quickly.

How will a public editor help? If the Times uses the office the way 20 to 30 other newspapers around the country currently operate, the public editor will become the voice for readers to have their complaints be heard and considered seriously.

Not that former editor Howell Raines or his predecessors weren't open to hearing from readers. I'm certain they heard from members of Congress, governors, mayors, Cabinet officials -- even presidents -- who weren't happy with the Times for one reason or another. Those folks have a way to get through to the top editors of the nation's newspapers.

But it's the average reader -- the one who gets the paper delivered at home and doesn't pay for it on an expense account; the one who just moved here and expects more coverage of his home county; the loyal subscriber who is deeply disappointed in some lapse of good taste she's read on your pages -- this is the reader who needs a better shot at getting the editor's ear. And, sadly, these people are screened out on the phone or by e-mail readers at many newspapers.

Screened out except where there is someone in place whose job is to listen to, read messages sent by, and perhaps learn something from, people who care enough to contact the paper.

The key for the Times, as it is for all papers that have taken this step, is not to let the public editor insulate other top editors from reader complaints. All editors should be talking and listening to their readers, or so the mission statement goes.

But at large newspapers, reader access to busy editors is virtually impossible. So empowering the public editor to carry the concerns of readers into the daily news meetings and planning sessions of editors -- and communicating those concerns to the staff as a whole -- is what will make a difference.

The once-a-week column in this space devoted to examining how the newspaper functions and answering reader questions is also an essential part of the job, but not as important as what takes place behind the scenes.

The larger challenge for most of us in positions like this is representing readers and their expectations of accuracy and fairness in daily conversations -- private and formal -- with the reporters, editors, graphic artists, photographers, opinion writers and others in the news department.

Sometimes it can be done only with direct contact.

This week, for instance, about 40 AJC readers visited the newspaper and attended the afternoon meeting where editors discussed what was going on Page One the next day. After the meeting, editor Julia Wallace and managing editors Hank Klibanoff and James Mallory stayed around to answer questions about how we make such decisions. It was the second such session for readers we have held this summer. There will be more.

A few years ago, the idea of opening the doors to a Page One meeting at a newspaper this size would have been unheard of. But then so once was the idea of a public editor at The New York Times.

The world changes. Readers demand more accountability. Newspapers respond or pay the price.