"We are here today to discuss a most peculiar kind of employment in journalism _ the position of news ombudsman. Here we have a man or woman who is paid a decent salary to criticise his or her own peers, his own associates, often her own friends. As we say, the ombudsman "hangs out the dirty laundry."

And many of these ombudsmen do that out there in public for all the world to see!......

"What the ombudsman does is in the finest tradition of journalism. The ombudsman does what good journalists always have done: aggressively examines powerful public institutions, letting in light for the purpose of improving that institution and its service to the people......

"The founders of the United States in the 18th century drafted the basic document that established American form of government _ the constitution. That constitution gave the American press unique protections. No other profit-making entity was singled out for mention in the constitution, and given those protections. Only the press. Those protections _ embedded in our First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech _ are a privilege.

That privilege carries with it a great obligation, the obligation to be accountable _ accountable to the people the press serves.

It seems to me that this kind of accountability is owed to all societies that are served by a free press, even those without the kind of protections the American press enjoys.

I can think of no reason why the press _ with all its influence and power over the lives and minds of the people _ should not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as is focused on other powerful segments of the community: the government, military, business, arts, religion, finance and all the rest.

Surely it is in the press' own self-interest that such scrutiny _ honestly and fearlessly done _ come from within the press itself. If we don't do it, somebody else _ with perhaps nefarious motives _ might do it for us.

In the ancient Scandinavian language the word ombudsman meant "the man who sees to it that the snow and ice and rubbish are removed from the streets and that the chimneys are swept."......

"Today, of course, the word means something quite different. An ombudsman is somebody who receives and investigates complaints from the public and attempts to achieve fair settlements to disputes.

The Swedes have had ombudsmen dealing with government agencies and the parliament since 1809.

It was 1916 when Sweden established the Swedish Press Council, or what was called the "Court of Honor." It was a means for the press to exercise what it called "self-discipline."

In 1969 this press council appointed its own ombudsman. It was a response to the public outcry against unethical press behaviour, especially against how the press was reporting crime, behaviour that was reaching ominous proportions. For its part, the Swedish press feared legislation would be enacted to curtail the media if the existing system or self-discipline wasn't made more responsive.

In America, as far back as 1947, there were calls for the press to clean up its house. That year Henry Luce, the founder of Time and Life magazines, was instrumental in convening a group of notable non-journalists to examine the press with some care. It was the Hutchins Commission on Freedom of the Press, named after its chairman, Robert Maynard Hutchins, at that time president of the University of Chicago.

After lengthy study, the commission, which was supported by private philanthropy, issued a warning: the press either must monitor itself or risk being monitored by the government.

"One of the most effective ways in improving the press is blocked by the press itself," said one of the commission's conclusions. "By a kind of unwritten law, the press ignores the errors and misrepresentations, the lies and the scandals, of which its members are guilty."

And this, of course, was long before the age of lurid tabloid scandal sheets and the prurient television shows that masquerade as news programmes.

The commission's findings were largely ignored. They received the silent treatment from the American media establishment.

Into the 1960s the anti-press mood in the U.S. continued to grow, perhaps as part of the broader lack of confidence in all major institutions, in addition to a reaction against the quickening power and ownership concentration of the mass media.

A Michigan State University study in the late 1900s found that "many reporters are cynical about the public's intelligence, arrogant about the journalist's role in deciding what is published, and inclined to reject public criticism."......

"Readers, though, weren't as dumb as many journalists thought they were. They knew we journalists are mere mortals, and that like all humans we make mistakes. They resented it when we didn't correct ourselves. On top of that, and probably more important, readers were beginning to find many other sources for getting the news besides their morning newspaper. We newspaper people were becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Gradually, newspapers _ at least some of them _ began to understand that a frank admission of errors can be good for credibility, and credibility, after all, is a newspaper's prime asset.

It was an editor of The Washington Post who sounded the first call for a newspaper ombudsman in North America. In March 1967, Ben Bagdikian wrote in Esquire magazine that the press was experiencing a crisis in public confidence, and too often for valid reasons.

He felt an ombudsman might be one way to avoid deepening the public's disenchantment. He wrote: "Some brave owner someday will provide for a community ombudsman on his paper's board...to present, to speak, to provide a symbol and, with luck, exert public interest in the ultimate fate of the American newspaper."

Just a few months later, A.H. Raskin, the esteemed labour reporter for The New York Times, explored the ombudsman concept even further in an article he wrote for his paper's Sunday magazine. He contended that the press was overly complacent and did not sufficiently criticise itself.

"That is the point of my proposal that newspapers establish their own Department of Internal Criticism to check on the fairness and adequacy of their coverage and comment," he wrote. "The department head ought to be given enough independence in the paper to serve as ombudsman for the readers, armed with authority for more effective performance of all the paper's services to the community, particularly the patrol it keeps on the frontiers of thought and action."

Ironically enough, The New York Times never did rise to Raskin's proposal and appoint an ombudsman. But eight days after his article appeared, the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky, did. It appointed the first news ombudsman in North America.

Not long after that, The Washington Post became the first newspaper to install an ombudsman who not only answered reader complaints but also commented publicly and critically on the paper's performance.

Today, there are 37 full-time ombudsmen in the United States, seven in Canada, and at least another dozen in Brazil, Japan, Spain, Israel, England, Venezuela, Paraguay, South Africa and France.

These men and women, of course, do not all work alike......None has authority to hire or fire other journalists. Some have authority to order corrections to be published. Some participate as observers in the daily news planning meetings. All provide their editors with internal critiques in one form or another.

But whatever their differences, I think it is fair to say that all are committed to fairness, accuracy and balance in the news columns......

"What makes a good ombudsman? In my opinion he or she needs these principal traits: First, a deep understanding of the journalistic process. He or she should be a veteran reporter or editor. Second, a deep understanding of the community the paper serves; its demographics, its history, its geography. Third, a genuine interest in people -- the ability to listen to them without instantly raising defensive walls.... Finally, the successful ombudsman needs a tough outer skin, and s strength of character and resolve to withstand the psychological rigors of that "aloneness" that comes to every ombudsman......

"I'd like to conclude with a comment by Charles W. Bailey, a former editor of the Minneapolis Tribune, "The ombudsman's job is not to make himself or his editor or even his newspaper either popular or beloved," said Mr. Bailey. "His job is to regain or retain the respect of readers. It's not a wholly disinterested goal. In the long run, respect is the only sentiment that will keep the public reading, believing, supporting _ and buying _ a newspaper."