Schlagwort-Archive: Kirk LaPointe

ONO-Konferenz in Hamburg – weltweites Echo von Bayern bis Indien

Die Weltkonferenz der ONO in Hamburg im Mai 2014 hat ein reges Echo in den Medien gefunden – rund um den Erdball, in Deutschland, UK bis Kanada und Indien… Hier einige Kolumnen der Kollegen:

 

 

20140511-234213.jpg

ONO Annual Conference 2014

May 13 2014
By Kirk LaPointe (on the photo right, with Hamburg´s mayor Olaf Scholz and Stephen Pritchard)
Kirk LaPointe, Executive Director, ONO:
The surveillance leaks by Edward Snowden. The firing of an ombudsman for unfurling media corruption. The lingering scandal of phone-hacking. The controversy about unpublishing. Vulnerable sources and subjects. Do-it-yourself ethics. Transparency in government.
The annual conference of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) tackled these contemporary issues May 4-7. The Hamburger Abendblatt and Axel Springer publishing group played host to about 60 delegates.
The role of the ombudsman is growing in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia. Even in North America, ONO has gained more than lost members in the last year. But the conference heard many concerns about media standards, the difficulty in enforcing them, and the declining public trust in journalism in many parts of the world.
The themes of the conference were secrecy, standards, corruption and cover-ups. These concepts are at the leading edge of work by media ombudsmen and public editors worldwide as they increasingly blend public complaints with broader issues of journalistic independence. Six ombudsmen from six continents (Sally Begbie of SBS, Michael Getler of PBS, George Claassen of Media24, AS Panneerselvan of The Hindu, Tarmu Tammerk of Estonian Broadcasting, and Cynthia Ottaviano of the Argentine defender’s office) outlined the common challenges and unique situations in their regions.
The conference heard from award-winning actor and comedian Steve Coogan on the invasion of privacy by British media and the need for regulation to curtail the excesses of the tabloids. Pulitzer-winning journalist Ewen McAskill of The Guardian spoke of the bravery of his news organization in publishing the revelations of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Yavuz Baydar, the European Prize-winning former ombudsman for Sabah in Turkey, chronicled the events that led to his firing for publishing details of media corruption in his country.
The mayor of Hamburg, Olaf Scholz, discussed the need for independent but transparent media, just as he highlighted the importance of open government, to gain public trust. German panelists reinforced the valued role of ombudsmen in their country.
Cynthia Ottaviano, the Argentine public defender, and CBC ombudsman Esther Enkin explored the challenges of protecting vulnerable sources as they deal with and are reported on by media. Tom Naegels of de Standaard in Belgium examined the dilemmas of transparency for ombudsmen in handling sensitive cases.
David Jordan, the standards editor of the BBC, led a discussion on the wide-ranging and controversial perspectives about “unpublishing” online information. Tom Kent, the standards editor of the Associated Press, and Kirk LaPointe, ONO’s executive director and an adjunct professor at University of British Columbia, looked at the value and challenges of providing do-it-yourself ethical codes at fledgling organizations and with individual journalists.
Two ShopTalk sessions led by Sjoerd de Jong of NRC Handelsblad and Jeffrey Dvorkin of American Abroad delved into particular issues for the membership: sponsored content, pressure groups, standards amid speed, among others. There was local and national media coverage of the conference’s agenda.
The conference featured a boat cruise through the waterways of Hamburg and a gala dinner with what has become traditional regaling by some in our Dutch contingent.
At the ONO business meeting, a new board was elected. Tarmu Tammerk (Estonian Broadcasting) is the new ONO president. Esther Enkin (CBC) is the new vice president. The treasurer is Tom Kent (AP). Stephen Pritchard (Observer) is past-president, and he and Yavuz Baydar are ex-officio board members. Board members include: Gerardo Albarrán de Alba (Noticias MVS), Sally Begbie (SBS), George Claassen (Media24), David Jordan (BBC), Kirk LaPointe (ONO executive director), Ralf Nehmzow (Hamburger Abendblatt), Cynthia Ottaviano (Argentine defender’s office), AS Panneerselvan (The Hindu), Ignaz Staub (Tamedia AG), and Sylvia Stead (The Globe and Mail).
13 May 2014

 

20140510-171128.jpg

 

The readers‘ editor on… Steve Coogan’s defence of Leveson
‚We are all champions of press freedom and public interest journalism,‘ declares Steve Coogan (on the photo with Ralf Nehmzow (r.)

 

Stephen Pritchard
The Observer, Sunday 11 May 2014
Jump to comments (12)

Steve Coogan addresses the ONO conference in Hamburg. Photograph: Michael Rauhe
The great port of Hamburg is a musical city. The birthplace of Brahms and once home to Telemann, CPE Bach, Gustav Mahler and briefly, of course, the Beatles, it seems to live and breathe music. Last week, for example, about 300 amateur brass players turned up in the main square and played their hearts out, all under the direction of a conductor who had to stand on a table to be seen across a glittering sea of trumpets, trombones, horns and tubas.

I was reminded of that sight and sound a couple of days later in a rather different context: a discussion on the British press at the annual conference of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (my last as president) held at the headquarters of Hamburg’s main newspaper, Hamburger Abendblatt.

At the conference, entitled „Secrets, standards, corruption and cover-ups: staying transparent in a murky world“, readers‘ editors and broadcasting standards editors from six continents tackled all manner of ethical issues, including, inevitably, the tortured progress of press regulation in the UK.

Those ranks of blaring brass came to mind when award-winning actor, writer, comedian and producer Steve Coogan described how a major section of the British press had drowned out mature debate on where the UK goes after the Leveson report. He travelled to Hamburg to deliver a counterblast to those newspapers that maintain that a system of regulation underpinned by a royal charter is an attack on press freedom and should be resisted.

Despite finding „the prospect of celebrities taking part in this slightly irksome“, he became involved in Hacked Off, the group that campaigns for victims of press intrusion, after he spent nearly £400,000 taking action against News International once he discovered his phone had been hacked.

„This has been characterised as me having a score to settle but I became involved principally because I saw a debate that wasn’t happening. I saw people who were victims of press intrusion not being given a platform,“ he said. Many people were scared of speaking out against intrusion because they feared the press would then seek to destroy them but he felt able to make a stand because his personal life had been raked over to such an extent that „they had emptied my closet of skeletons“.

He said the incentives to join a Leveson-compliant regulator (immunity to exemplary damages and full cost protection in court actions) were a benefit to journalism, particularly to smaller newspapers that might be financially crippled in the courts. He railed against those who cite false dangers to press freedom („a disingenuous cloak they wrap around themselves“) while ignoring the fact that only a few powerful people own the papers in Britain – a threat to press freedom in itself and a lack of plurality that puts the UK way down European freedom rankings, irrespective of press regulatory systems.

And he exposed what he called the myth of the foreign despot. „Some papers are saying foreign dictators – unnamed – are using the Leveson report as an excuse to impose state control on their press, but if a foreign dictator imposed Leveson he would be imposing voluntary, incentivised, independent self-regulation. In every case this would be a massive rolling back of state control. The Daily Mail and others should be campaigning for Leveson in China, Cuba and Zimbabwe.

„Even the wholly false notion of state control would not have come about if the tabloid press had not behaved so unethically. None of us want state control. We are all champions of press freedom and public interest journalism.“

So where does Hacked Off go, now that most of the industry has joined the Independent Press Standards Organisation, due to start work next month? Describing Ipso as a cosmetic exercise, Coogan remained optimistic that those papers that are currently outside either system would eventually sign up to a self-regulator recognised by the royal charter. „I don’t believe remaining newspapers will sign up to Ipso in its current form,“ he said. And if the impasse isn’t broken he had this warning for politicians: „There is an election on the horizon. Those people who made promises will be held to account on all sides of the political divide and the victims of press intrusion will remind people what this is all about.“

reader@observer.co.uk

 

——–

20140510-171236.jpg
The Hindu A.S. Panneerselvan. Photo: S.R. Raghunathan
TOPICS
economy, business and finance
media

interior policy
data protection
Last week, news ombudsmen from across the world met at Hamburg in Germany for our annual deliberations and the topic was of both professional and general interest: “Secrets, standards, corruption and cover-ups: staying transparent in a murky world.” I am going to skip the details of three interesting subjects that were discussed at the conference as I have touched upon them in my earlier columns: the fallout of The Guardian’s decision to take up the Edward Snowden revelations, press intrusion and abuse leading to the Leveson Inquiry, and the state of the media in Turkey today.

The inevitability of digital platforms is that a problem arising in one part of the world becomes a global problem within a short span of time. The request to “unpublish” from the web archive is one of the new issues in front of news ombudsmen across the world. I have been receiving at least a couple of requests a month. There are arguments both for and against the takedown. Technology is not purely a boon but comes with its own attendant problems.

Recognising this complex reality, The Guardian has a dedicated section called “Internet privacy — the right to be forgotten” to discuss the issues involved in a dispassionate manner. The primary argument here is: “The internet has a long memory. But what if the pictures, data and personal information that it can pull up about you appear unfair, one-sided or just plain wrong? More and more people are claiming they have a “right to be forgotten” and are even trying to delete themselves from the web. The issue appears poised to generate legal, technological and moral wranglings for years to come.”

The session on unpublishing led by David Jordan, Director, Editorial Policy and Standards, British Broadcasting Corporation, managed to capture some of the real challenges in dealing with the request for removing content from the web archive. The principles for web archiving of media organisations, according to David Jordan, are: material published online will be part of a permanently accessible archive; the archive of online content is a matter of public record and its existence is in the public interest; material will not normally be removed or we risk erasing the past and altering history, and online content — whether part of a catch-up service or a permanent archive — should only be removed or amended in exceptional circumstances.

Risks after removal
Before removing any online content, Mr. Jordan alerted us that we must consider the potential harm such an action can do to the public interest, and the integrity of the archive or catch-up service. He said: “There is a risk, with removal, that we simply create suspicion about what else is missing and fuel conspiracy theories about its absence. We also need to consider the risk that information we remove may take on a life of its own and become distorted in the retelling. In the absence of the original content, it will be harder to refute inaccurate accounts of our content.”

Some of the participants also raised the question of the Internet cache that keeps some of the content widely in circulation and that in these cases, removal from one site may simply be ineffective. The questions that came up for discussion were: can things be done which fall short of removal? Should the public record always be sacrosanct? Do we have a duty to ensure that the public record is complete — e.g., an accurate report of arrest and charge/trial but no report of acquittal? Can steps short of removal solve the problem without compromising the record?

Two cases
Mr. Jordan, among other things, discussed two specific cases that may interest the readers of this newspaper. The first is a case of a law student charged in connection with a prank about a bomb threat in a public place. All charges against the law student were dropped well before the case went to trial. His lawyer said he was simply “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” A year later, the student requests that reports of the charges be removed from the online archive. He is job hunting and concerned that because searches of his name in Google pull up those articles he will be stigmatised.

The second, is a request from an Iranian political activist about his interview to the BBC. “I gave two interviews to the BBC website and my name is printed there. As you may know, political relations between Iran and the U.K. is tremendously worsening and the Iranian administration has passed a law that makes interviews with foreign media illegal and there could be severe consequences for any violation. Currently, I reside in the U.S. but I plan to visit Iran pretty soon and these interviews may be really troublesome. I would like to know if there is any possibility that my name and photo can be modified to anonymous due to security reasons.”

“The longtail of news: To unpublish or not to unpublish,” a paper by Kathy English, public editor of the Toronto Star, examines how news organisations throughout North America are responding to requests to unpublish news content. I propose to create a template for The Hindu in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editor over the next few months for unpublishing.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

Keywords: unpublishing news, online privacy debate, internet privacy, Snowden revelations, Editorial Policy and Standards, Turkey media, Reccip Tayip Erdogan, Leveson enquiry

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/Readers-Editor/to-unpublish-or-not-to-unpublish/article5998638.ece

20140511-233846.jpg
Auf ein Wort
Am Samstag war der internationale Tag der Pressefreiheit. „Geheimnisse, Standards, Korruption und Vertuschung: Transparent bleiben in einer trüben Welt“, lautet das aktuelle Motto des Weltkongresses der Organisation der Medien-Ombudsleute (ONO).

Von Kerstin Dolde, (auf dem Foto bei der ONO-Präsentation der deutschen Medienombudsleute), Leseranwältin
Seit Montag findet in Hamburg die internationale Tagung statt, zum ersten Mal treffen sich die Teilnehmer in Deutschland. Journalisten aus aller Welt diskutieren über Qualitätsstandards, Lesergewinnung und Themen wie NSA und Snowden-Enthüllungen.

Medien-Ombudsleute, Leseranwälte oder -botschafter, die Bezeichnung ist in den Häusern unterschiedlich. Die Gemeinsamkeit: Sie alle vermitteln bei Anliegen und Beschwerden zwischen Bürgern und Medien, gehen auf Leserkritik ein und üben selbst Kritik. Auch die Frankenpost ist als ONO-Mitglied in Hamburg dabei: Unsere Zeitung wurde gebeten, den Kollegen aus aller Welt ihr Leseranwalts-Konzept und die Erfahrungen aus drei Jahren vorzustellen.

Äußerst prominent besetzt ist dabei die Riege der Redner dieser ONO-Tagung: Ewan MacAskill vom Londoner Guardian, der kürzlich zusammen mit Kollegen den Pulitzer-Preis für seine Enthüllung der NSA-Sammlung von Telefon- und Internetdaten sowie die Gespräche mit Whistleblower Edward Snowden bekam. Mac-Askill hält genauso einen Vortrag wie Yavuz Baydar. Der Kolumnist bekam kürzlich den Europäischen Pressepreis für seinen Kampf für die Pressefreiheit. Dazu ist der Oscar nominierte Schauspieler Steve Coogan („Philomena“) dabei, der über seine schlechten Erfahrungen mit der britischen Boulevardpresse berichtet.

Noch bis einschließlich heute, Mittwoch, diskutieren die Teilnehmer über wichtige Fragen wie diese: „Wie kann man die Qualität von Zeitungen steigern? Welche Rolle haben Medien im Spannungsfeld zwischen NSA-Spionage, den Sicherheitsinteressen von Staaten und öffentlichen Informationsinteressen der Bürger? Wie weit dürfen Medien gehen?

Die ONO engagiert sich seit 1980 für Qualitätsjournalismus und Pressefreiheit sowie für den Erhalt von ethischen Standards in den Medien.

 

 

World Journalism Educators Congress

20130604-013556.jpg

Veteran Turkish journalist Yavuz Baydar, our fellow ombudsman, was fired from his long-time post at the Sabah daily on Tuesday, after its editorial board censored two of his columns related to the Gezi Park protests and media-government relations. – a shocking news to all of us, that first of all shows, that ombudsmen have to keep on fighting in order to reach their goals, to uphold the freedom of the press. And it also shows, how important media ombudsmen are in our democracy!

Kirk LaPointe, Executive Director, Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), was guest-speaker and delivered a impressive speech at the recent World Journalism Educators Congress in Belgium. The photo (left) shows the annual ONO-conference in Los Angeles in May 2013.

Read his speech:

„Thank you for the invitation today. I am grateful for the privilege to speak to you and share the stage with two such distinguished keynote speakers.

I do teach part-time as an adjunct professor in journalism at University of British Columbia, so I am not entirely a fish out of water here. But I am here, after a quarter-century of managing media, representing the Organization of News Ombudsmen.

ONO is our acronym. It is also the sound many news managers make when they learn an ombudsman is about to investigate a public complaint. Actually, ONO would be one of the more polite things they say.

Many journalists liken the experience of an ombudsman’s review to being summoned to the principal’s office or to an afternoon in the dentist’s chair. Or to an intervention for a substance abuse issue. Certainly nothing nice. It tells us quite a bit about journalism that it might be considered that way.

I want to talk today a little bit about the role, a bit about what we’re seeing, and a few suggestions about the situation. I want to refrain from too much prescription.

ONO comprises about 70 or so ombuds, public editors, and reader representatives, whose role it is to be public advocates when complaints arise and issues surface in media coverage — which is to say, every hour of every day from all over concerning all things. We also have as associate members those who examine and teach in the broad area of media ethics and public engagement.

Complaints come in all sizes and shapes. No two are ever alike, are even addressed or resolved alike, because their contexts differ. The situated knowledge of one is not the situation knowledge of another, so there can be differing approaches to the same complaint in various parts of the world to reflect local sensibilities. It is a role, after all, with common sense in mind.

There is precious little scientific analysis about complaints, but the basic data indicate complaints are most often about accuracy. People don’t like it when they think something wrong is being spread. And they have long since become whip-smart at identifying and not tolerating error. They want a correction, a retraction, an apology if possible.

But increasingly these days, the complaints are about fairness and the methods journalists use to gather and present. Even when the content is provided free, people feel free to question it: the perceived irresponsibility, the emphasis they wish were accorded the story, the significant missing element, or the effort that would have, in their minds, brought equitability.

The complaints are very sophisticated in many cases, posing real challenges retroactively to the decision-making, second-guessing the judgment, calling into question the way in which professionals acted. If there is any doubt the public is smarter than the newsroom, the nature of complaints should dismiss that concern.

People are wondering why journalists aren’t taking our own medicine. They hate it if we don’t respond — in the electronic age, everyone else seems to respond — and hate it even more if we respond with the same spin that might come from a politician or big business. They feel their loyalty is betrayed if you talk down to them. And they are merciless if the conversation feels less than authentic.

To be an ombudsman is to accept that even a broken clock is right twice a day. You know you need to leave the job when you conclude that a broken clock is wrong 23 hours and 58 minutes. It is a job for the patience of Job. When all around are reverting to child-like behavior, the ombudsman is the wise elder. While others are talking and pointing fingers, the ombudsman is the model of discretion and deliberation.

The role is part organizational moral compass, part guidance counsellor. The realm of the ombudsman isn’t supposed to be one of unrealistic or magical thinking. It’s to be practical, to help newsrooms live up to realistic public expectation and to help the public understand the realities — including the deficiencies — of the craft of journalism.

With each complaint, there is effectively a winner and a loser. Your ultimate loyalty as an ombudsman is to the public. But at its best, the role serves as the proverbial, somewhat clichéd, honest broker with an ability to use objective methods of inquiry and to be direct with each party once a finding is reached.

When I talk to other ombuds — there are women and men, so the title is perhaps due for a touch-up — what they tell me is that they’re noticing differences in the nature and tone of the complaints in recent times.

They perceive a greater impatience and more harshness in the mix lately. It’s as if the public is itself exhausted with overwork, admitting it, and wondering why overworked journalists can’t just admit it, too. In other words, why can’t they be human? Why do they need to defend and justify the indefensible justification?

At a time many newsrooms are shedding costs, I am pleased to note that our membership is growing, particularly in Europe and Asia, where there have been several recent appointments and interest among media to create the role. This is a hopeful sign, although having dozens in a field of thousands is considering the glass’ fill and not its emptiness.

That said, some media are recognizing that they need a mechanism to reassure the public. They view the ombudsman or a public editor or a similar office as a form of quality assurance to its audience, albeit one with limitations, and part of a reputation management system embedded in its governance. Depending on the mandates, these ombudsmen have significant latitude to proactively and reactively represent the public’s complaints, moods, inclinations and instincts — and, unlike other critiques, to propel a response.

The ombudsmen numbers are declining in North America, with the most recent example being the elimination of the role at the Washington Post and its appointment of a reader representative with a far less formidable mandate. As news organizations in North America shed legacy costs, this function is seemingly more at risk there than anywhere.

ONO has existed since 1980. I am new in this role as Executive Director, but it is our hope we can enlarge the organization in years to come. I would encourage you in this room to join as associate members, to help us with your insights.

For good reason. We think the role is needed. We think it serves a wide array of public interests. We even think it benefits the media’s business interests.

I am in a room of journalism educators, so I am not telling you anything new to note that academic research has consistently found about one in two stories contain factual errors, that media trust in most countries has been in decline, that state and special-interest pressures can discernibly sway journalism, and that newsrooms are prone to be defensive in their culture and much less transparent than the institutions they cover and from whom they expect it. Many institutions could well say to journalism: Physician, heal thyself. These are all matters you discuss in your classrooms, as we do at University of British Columbia.

Particularly in an era of media abundance, it should make sense that creating and enforcing high standards would enhance and entrench one’s reputation, would signal an accessible and accountable news organization, and would even serve as a point of differentiation with an increasing number of competitors.

After all, a form of oversight does not have to be oversized. It can push for higher standards, but mainly it simply holds an organization to its commitments, usually those reflective of the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics: to tell the truth, to minimize harm, to act independently, and to seek accountability of others and of themselves. Of course, with the devil in the details, we know these are no small matters.

Yet in some organizations, the mere thought of this oversight is overbearing. It is deemed an intrusion, an indulgence, an intervention, or an interference. I suspect this response hasn’t likely changed since the origins of the ombudsman concept back in the Qin Dynasty in China, circa 200 BC.

Some news managers consider the marketplace the best barometer of their behaviour — that is, if they misbehave, consumers will turn elsewhere. We know this isn’t always so.

Others believe that the laws, particularly those on defamation, serve to keep a news organization in line. We know, too, that this isn’t so, that not everyone wants to or even can wage a legal fight, and that not all unsuccessful legal cases are without their merits. That clearing a name or a reputation or even basic information need not be a struggle in the courts or even a cat-and-mouse chase.

Still others note the letters to the editor, online story comments, and even the blogosphere as more than ample checks on their journalistic fairness and accuracy.

We know that these voices, while often helpful, can only go so far in representing the public because they have no invested authority. There are no professional or organizational requirements to hear them, to investigate them, to make a determination on them, and to act upon them. Independent criticism only has so much effect.

It is fair to say that in a time of cost-cutting, an ombudsman can appear an easy target or an unwise investment economically. As one editor put it recently: “I can choose to have an ombudsman or a health reporter.” We know this is a false choice, but it is an example of what some cite.

These reasons not to have oversight are justifications borne out of some fear, an oblique concession of vulnerability, and some determination that admission of error constitutes a weakness rather than a virtue.

Some organizations do not like the attendant publicity that comes with an ombudsman’s finding, feeling it provides an opportunity for their competitors to crow about a mistake when those competitors do not subject themselves to that same institutional scrutiny and publicity.

I don’t particularly agree with the justification, but in many ways I understand it. Ombudsmen — and those who advocate high standards of journalism, like those in this room — do not always make a persuasive argument. We appear to have an old sound in an era of constant newness. If you listen to pop music, you’ll know that approach may work for Daft Punk, but not us.

I learned some time ago that we human beings have three basic needs: to be seen, heard and understood. Think about it: Those three needs cover everything in our lives. Our work, our relationships, our sense of well-being and self-esteem are housed in that concept. But these needs — seen, heard, understood —- do not necessarily carry into how journalism engages its audience.

This is curious for a business that so seeks to satisfy, that so wants to serve, that so enjoys reveling in fanfare, that is all about show and tell and share and discuss. How can it be that a craft would at all wish to isolate itself from those who attend loyally to its work, who pay the bills, who spread the word — and would not make every effort to see, hear and understand its audience?

What I’ve learned is that people don’t necessarily need to be agreed with. They really only need to be acknowledged. An ombudsman, or a facsimile, is media’s best effort to recognize those needs, to listen to the audience, understand its support and criticism without a change in blood pressure either way. And to help an organization contend with the collision of two cultures: the one that wants openness, the one that prefers not.

Two things strike me as curious in this current context of media.

First, for legacy media, I wonder why more haven’t created the position of ombudsman or public editor as they have transformed the business into a digital-first operation. As they shed all of these resources and remake their processes, I wonder why they did not see the need for a form of public insurance on their standards — a position or a mechanism that would ensure that standards and practices evolved and didn’t suffer along the way. I wonder if that might prove an immense regret later.

Second, for digital media, I wonder why few if any are creating a similar position. For all of the glory of the new age, are we failing to explain how standards are evolving and being upheld? Crowdsourced content can work, but crowdsourced complaint resolution isn’t workable. Audience engagement can work, but audiences are not enabled to investigate a complaint thoroughly. So, something has to emerge here — if not an ombudsman role, then a new process. If it doesn’t, I also think that will prove an immense regret.

To have the strongest debate on journalism and its future, we need more players in the tent to be transparent and accountable. Because we are in need of many debates that digital media can guide.

Now, there are also responsibilities for the ombudsmen here to demonstrate their value. I want to discuss two areas of work here: One we can prove, one we need to go about proving.

The first argument, the easier one, is actually about economics and it might appeal to the bottom-line-oriented manager. An ombudsman can save an organization a lot of money and an immense amount of managerial and reportorial time that can be better spent.

In one newsroom I managed, where we didn’t have an ombudsman, we used to note that our highest-paid person on the payroll was our legal counsel. Our lawyer had to deal with countless complaints, mainly about fairness and accuracy, that stood little or no chance of making it into the courts but nonetheless occupied time and resources. He constantly had to send off an expensive letter to keep the wolves at bay. And for every billable moment of the lawyer there was often a sunk and frittered cost of newsroom resources to work through the complaint.

Most ombudsmen very tidily handle the vast majority of these public complaints at a fraction of the expense. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they are self-liquidating, but in some cases it can be close. The presence of an ombudsman gives the public a legitimate and reliable alternative to the courts, a guarantee of a public airing of a complaint, an investigation, a deliberation, a presentation — and ultimately, better information upon which the public can then determine.

 

What we can only guess at economically is what an active ombudsman saves in terms of complaints that don’t arrive or in reputations in the community that might keep subscriber or advertiser support in place. The presence of an ombudsman reassures the public someone is there on watch.

A second issue, though, is one worth greater study. Does the presence of an ombudsmen or public editor or reader representative have a direct relationship to the public trust in that organization? Certainly, many of the most trusted brands feature this function: The New York Times, the BBC, PBS, many of the European media, among them.

But the correlation isn’t necessarily causation, and we need empirically to examine the connection between the presence of an ombudsman and public trust. We think it’s there, and we need that evidence as part of our effort to create a constituency. That constituency will lead organizations to better practices, which will better serve their interests and those of the public.

What are the messages here for educators? Well, first off, it’s clear that in examining the quality of journalism, ombudsmen have found that a conversation works better than lecture, so that is our contribution if your instincts are similar.

You know your students are heading into a pace of production and change you did not experience. The challenge I see is one we contend with at UBC: what my wife, a most respected academic, identifies as how to provide intellectual readiness in journalism graduates, so that they are prepared for whatever conditions they encounter or decisions face them.

Part of that intellectual readiness is a grasp of the theory and practice of ethical decision-making. In part this is acknowledgement of reality: that in this technologically determinist time of gadget-driven journalism without ombudsmen or public editors in their midst, journalists might otherwise be left — no pun intended — to their own devices.

If our next wave of journalists will be more entrepreneurial, less tied to organizations, more personally branded, more portable and agile, then what grounds them is of vital importance because they may not have the same mentored relationships in their networks, the same continuity of learning in an organization, or even the same forgiveness of errant decisions.

It makes professional, economic and social sense to get this understanding at the front end of a career, not learn it the hard way along the way. If we are lucky, they will emerge as ethical entrepreneurs. Even if their organizations won’t appoint ombuds or substantially train newsrooms, then they can at least be schooled to do the right thing, make the best choices, and develop a greater sense of reflexivity in how they report.

While, from my admittedly self-serving perspective, we need more ombudsmen, if we can’t have them, the next best thing is to teach our journalists to think and act like them.

Thank you.“

 

 

 

 

Sollen Künstler die Foto-Auswahl bestimmen können? Angriff auf Pressefreiheit?

Cecilia Bartoli ist eine Sängerin von Weltruf und mit vielen Anhängern. Neulich gastierte sie in Hamburg. Eine Aktion des Hamburger Abendblattes hat eine heftige Leser-Diskussion ausgelöst, auf allen Kanälen. Darum geht es: Wie viel Einfluss dürfen Künstler auf die Berichterstattung über sie nehmen? Ist es hinnehmbar, dass sie bestimmen, welches Foto von ihnen gedruckt wird? Das Abendblatt hat eine Debatte angestoßen.

Der konkrete Vorgang, Fall: Weil Cecilia Bartolis Management Fotos vorher zur Auswahl sehen wollte bzw. die nicht genehmen gelöscht haben wollte, gab es für die Diva diesmal eben im Hamburger Abendblatt kein Foto. Stattdessen haben wir eine weiße Fläche geziegt. Aber: Natürlich haben wir eine große Kritik gebracht. Viele Leser fanden die Aktion angemessen, nur wenig kritisierten das. Auch bei uns in der Redaktion wurde hitzig diskutiert.

Den Fall schickte ich meinen Kolleginnen und Kollegen, einmal rund um die Erde, lesen Sie unten, was die anderen Ombudsmänner sagen, aus den USA, Kanada, Afrika… Die kanadischen Kollegen sind eher für unsere Aktion, aus Afrika und Washington und sonst aus den USA kommt: Weißer Fleck sei zu viel, so was sollte man sich für wirkliche große Einflussnahme aufbewahren, s.u. , eine Professorin aus Iowa meint, wir hätten gar nichts machen sollen, „no press, no career“… , aber Ed Wasserman aus den USA sagt: Wir hätten die Leser bestraft durch Nichtzeigen des Fotos…

 

20130515-182829.jpg

Meine Meinung als Leserbotschafter und Ombudsmann des Hamburger Abendblattes dazu ist glasklar: Mag man auch einwenden, dass es nur eine Einflussnahme in einem Sektor sei, der außerhalb der politischen Sphäre liegt: Es ist ein klarer Angriff auf die Pressefreiheit, ob nun klein oder von Gewicht, den man sich als Medium jedenfalls nicht gefallen lassen darf. Die Pressefreiheit ist für unsere Demokratie „schlechthin konstituierend“, wie es das Bundesverfassungsgericht einmal in einem Leitsatz formuliert hat – da bin ich ganz bei den Richtern! Mit welchen Mitteln man dann in diesem Fall letztlich als Medium reagiert – ob man zum Beispiel statt eines Fotos nur eine weiße Fläche zeigt oder vielleicht ein anderes Foto druckt und dazu eine Anmerkung des Chefredakteurs oder eines leitenden Redakteurs zu dem Vorgang dazustellt – ist dann eine Detailfrage.

Fest steht: Wenn man hier nicht Flagge zeigen würde als Zeitung, hieße das, dass ein Damm brechen könnte. Demnächst würden dann evt. andere Institutionen oder Multiplikatoren bei Journalisten intervenieren und die Presse müsste sich dann vorschreiben lassen, was sie darf und was nicht – das ist mit Artikel 5 des Grundgesetzes nicht vereinbar und wäre auch letztlich für die Leser nicht von Nutzen. Bei Interviews wird beispielsweise auch nicht verlangt, dass hinterher Tonaufzeichnungen, die der Journalist evtl. gemacht hat, gelöscht werden müssten – das wäre unvorstellbar!

Die erste Kultur-Seite des Abendblatts, die alles ins Rollen brachte, sah so aus: Wo ein Foto von Cecilia Bartoli hätte stehen können, stand die Erklärung: „An dieser Stelle hätten wir gern ein Konzertfoto der Sängerin gezeigt. Doch das Schweizer Management stellte unannehmbare Bedingungen: Fotos in der Pause zur Auswahl vorlegen, die nicht genehmen löschen lassen? Darauf haben wir uns nicht eingelassen.“

Unknown-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wir haben die Story noch mal nachgedreht, eine Themaseite gemacht, ein Streitgespräch: Scharfe Kritik kam vom Veranstalter, der Konzertdirektion Dr. Rudolf Goette. Deren Geschäftsführer Christian Kuhnt war im Streitgespräch mit Abendblatt-Chefredakteur Lars Haider.

Auf der Facebook-Seite des Abendblattes habe ich das Thema gepostet – Die Reaktion auf die weiße Fotofläche im Konzertbericht über Cecilia Bartoli war auf der Abendblatt-Hauptseite bei Facebook überwältigend: Mehr als 28.000 „Views“, so viele Leser erreichte die Story dort in kurzer Zeit, mehr als 100 von ihnen kommentierten bis Montagnachmittag den Vorgang, mehr als 600 klickten auf den „Gefällt mir“-Button. Inzwischen sind es 34.000 Views.

Die überwiegende Zahl der Leser unterstützt die Abendblatt-Entscheidung, kein Foto von Cecilia Bartoli zu drucken – die Diskussion darüber hält auch nach mehreren Tagen noch an. Eine Dokumentation in Auszügen:

20130604-175258.jpg

„Ich finde das sehr richtig, da das Verhalten des Managements meiner Meinung nach einen Verstoß gegen die Pressefreiheit darstellt!“, postet Maximilian H.
„Prima! Jetzt müsst ihr diese Linie aber bitte mit allen anderen Promis und Politikern durchziehen“, schreibt Peter P.
„Danke. Der nächste Schritt wäre dann wohl, dass man beim Betreten eines Konzertsaals die Augen verbunden bekommt, wenn alternde Künstler ihr Spiegelbild nicht mehr mögen“, meint Michi R.
„Ich glaube, viele Künstler wissen gar nicht, was ihr wichtigtuerisches Management so treibt. Insofern ist der Ansatz gut“, kommentiert Kay Z. „Das zielt in gewisser Weise aber auch auf die ganze Problematik der Künstlerfotos und -fotografen, unter der auch viele Theater und Agenturen zu leiden haben, weil sie manchmal gar nicht mehr wissen, was sie überhaupt noch veröffentlichen dürfen und ob man die Vertragsstrafen dann bezahlen kann und will …“
Unknown
Arnold O.-L. schreibt: „Eine gute Entscheidung der Redaktion. Vielleicht merken die verantwortlichen Herrschaften endlich mal, wie wichtig die Printmedien für ihre Popularität sind. Denkt mal nach!“ Oder: „Glückwunsch. Ihr habt einen Arsch in der Hose“, formuliert Tim F. Und Andreas D. lobt: „Sehr gut! Da traut sich endlich jemand was!!!! Seit wann müssen Pressefotos genehmigt werden? Ein Grund, die Zeitung zu kaufen. Weiter so!“ Jörg Sch. meint: „Auch wenn ich die Sängerin sehr mag, die Aktion ist aber sehr stark! Gut gemacht!“
Wanda K. kommentiert differenziert: „Hhm, einerseits möchte ich auch nicht in unvorteilhafter Pose in die Zeitung, andererseits bin ich ja auch keine Person des öffentlichen Lebens, die mit solchen Auftritten ihr Geld verdient. Also: Die Presse muss frei und unabhängig sein und bleiben!“ Weitere Reaktionen lauten:“Richtig so“, „ich hätte den ganzen Artikel weggelassen“, „super. So soll es sein“ oder: „Das Verhalten des Managements ist im höchsten Maße unprofessionell“, „sehr gut, bitte in Zukunft bei ähnlichen Fällen genauso reagieren!“ Und weiter: „Das Management sollte sich da mal überlegen, was es falsch gemacht hat.“
Es gibt vereinzelt auch kritische Stimmen, zum Beispiel Alice F. Sie postet auf Facebook: „“Ausgerechnet Cecilia Bartoli, ein Ausnahmetalent und wundervolle Frau! Ich finde es völlig in Ordnung, dass sie bzw. ihr Management bestimmen kann, welche Bilder von ihr in den Medien erscheinen. Sie wird auch älter und ist nicht mehr so fotogen, wie sie einmal war. Wer möchte denn, dass Tausende Menschen schlechte Fotos von einem anschauen müssen?“
Ähnlich kommentiert eine andere Leserin: „… In der Öffentlichkeit zu stehen ist sicher nicht immer leicht, und da tauchen bestimmt Fotos auf, die uns allen unangenehm wären, wir wollen ja auch Fotos gelöscht haben, die uns (vor allem sicher Frauen) nicht in den Kram passen. Frau Bartoli, zu Recht eine Diva – ich verstehe Sie!“ André A. formuliert seine Kritik kurz und knapp: „Effekthascherisch. Überflüssig. Das hätte man auch anders lösen können.“
Zum Steitgespräch postet ein Leser auf Facebook: „Großartig! Danke für die Dokumentation der Motive hinter der untragbaren Behandlung von Fotografen durch viele Konzertagenturen/Künstler. Was der Herr Kuhnt da äußert entblößt ein verstörendes Verständnis von Pressefreiheit.“

 

Feedback aus aller Welt dazu:

20130521-144421.jpg

Hier das feedback aus aller Welt von den Ombudskollegen des Weltverbandes ONO: Die kanadischen Kollegen sind eher für unsere Aktion, aus Afrika und Washington und sonst aus den USA kommt: Weißer Fleck sei zu viel, so was sollte man sich für wirkliche große Einflussnahme aufbewahren, s.u. , eine Professorin aus Iowa meint, wir hätten gar nichts machen, no press, no career… , aber Ed Wassermann aus den USA sagt: Wir hätten die Leser bestraft durch Nichtzeigen des Fotos….

Below is a note from Ralf (ralf.nehmzow@abendblatt.de) on an issue for Hamburger Abendblatt involving conditions for photography of Cecelia Bartoli.
Please weigh in with comments for Ralf.
I am sure there are some clear points of view here.
Cheers,
Kirk LaPointe,
Executive Director,
ONO.

Ralf Nehmzow writes:

„Hamburger Abendblatt published a story regarding a performance of Cecilia Bartoli in Hamburg. However we did not print a photo of her, instead showed and printed empty space… see enclosed, the article. The reason: Her management wanted to see the photos before printing and the right to choose and to decide, which one should be published! They also insisted in their right to delete thosephotos, taken by our photographer, which they considered as not appropriate, How do you comment on that issue? Correct or assault on the freedom of the press ? Most of our readers, especially on Facebook appreciated the approach of Hamburger Abendblatt“

1.

„Hi Ralf,

My point of view is very simple : no way ! And no media should accept such conditions.

Pierre“

Pierre Tourangeau
Ombudsman des Services français
Blogue et révisions sur http://blogues.radio-canada.ca/ombudsman/

2. „I have no doubt either. It is censorship and completely unacceptable.
And I think you were right to let your readers know that was why there was no photo.
Esther“

Esther Enkin
CBC Ombudsman
ombudsman@cbc.ca
http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/

20130604-010202.jpg

3. „I agree. Not even close.

Michael Getler“ And: „I would add one more thing to Ed’s good point. By not running the photo shot by your staffer, you undermine the photo staff of your own paper which is, or should be, a serious mistake for management.“
Michael Getler, american journalist and ombudsman for the Public Broadcasting Service PBS in the United States

4. „My only slightly dissenting comment is that publishing white space where a picture was intended to be might be a little over the top. The point could have been made with an editor’s note. It seems to me that this is like using a cannon to kill a fly; the big guns should be held in reserve for the big issues–e.g. a government refusing to allow a picture to run that shows the President in ill health.“

Karen Rothmyer, former public editor at the Kenya Star


5. „I’m with Karen on this point. An editor’s note next to the story would be sufficient. “

Patrick Pexton, former Washington Post ombudsman

Ralf Nehmzow : „Thanks, interesting point, Patrick Pexton, but you also could argue: fight from the beginning… to prevent more“

Patrick Pexton: „True, but she is an artist, not a politician, who are more accountable to the people’s trust. “

6. „If everyone passed, starting with your publication, on doing a story on her at all, this might change the PR’s behavior. No press, no career, true?

There are other people to write about aren’t there? Why all the hand wringing, and worse, kowtowing? Just saying…“

Rhonda Roland Shearer
director, Art Science Research Laboratory
editor-in-chief, publisher, iMediaEthics
adjunct lecturer, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Iowa

7. „The manager’s wishes were, of course, ridiculous. I think I would have been in favor of publishing whichever photos seemed appropriate to the review. The white space punished the readers by denying them images of a great singer in performance and diminishing the satisfaction they would otherwise have gotten from reading about the concert.“

And he adds: „,Punish´ was perhaps too strong a term. But the irony of the publication’s defiance (which was the correct response, in my view) was that it took the form of withholding the photographs from public view and, in effect, allowing the singer’s management to censor them. I’m wondering whether, under German law, they had any legal basis to insist on a right to approve which images would be used. Otherwise the demand is baffling.“

Edward Wasserman, an authority on the ethics, evolution and ownership of the news media, became dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley

Dear Edward, interesting point, yes we punished the readers in a sence, but only regarding the white foto Space, we did publish a story on her concert
Ralf Nehmzow

20130529-004238.jpg