The Editors Weblog interviewed Mario Vitor Santos, who since last June joined the iG (Internet Group, specialized in a variety of online services including a news site) to become an online-only ombudsman, one of the first of its kind. With the rise of two-way lines of communication online, as well as the emergence of new ethical issues concerning comments, user-generated content and ‘fast-news’ broken online, the online ombudsman will undoubtedly be an essential piece in keeping news outlets both credible and legally safe.

Santos began his print journalism career in 1980. Apart from being a journalist, editor and head of the Brasilia bureau for Fohla de Sao Paulo, he also held two mandates as ombudsman, from 1991-93 and 1997-99

In the past, “old media were collectors and disseminators of information” as “we as journalists chose who to allow to say a word,” said Santos. Now the “many can speak to the few,” or even speak directly to the many (bypassing the ‘few’ - journalists). “Our assumption about our job is being tested by the public.”

That’s what’s really at stake in a newspaper’s choice to have an ombudsman or not: it can be a sign of whether editors have embraced the new Web 2.0 relationship with the audience, or have remained stuck in a one-way lecture discourse. To an extent, every journalist has the potential to be an ombudsman nowadays.

First, some background about ombudsmen’s traditionally precarious status:

Gelf Magazine recently reported on “the surprisingly recent phenomenon” of ombudsmen. It was only in the 1960s that they appeared in the US, as public opinion became more skeptical of the press. But to this day, relatively few US papers have ever hired one – The New York Times only got an ombudsman in the wake of the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal in 2003.

“They work in what has often been considered one of journalism’s most thankless jobs: getting an earful from angry (and sometimes crazed) readers and getting the cold shoulder from angry (and sometimes crazed) colleagues whom they dared to criticize,” wrote Mark Jurkowitz, who was ombudsman at the Boston Globe for two years.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune just recently eliminated its ombudsman position. “In a time of dwindling resources,” the editors wrote in an internal memo, “we need more help with the journalism in the newsroom.”

“It’s paradoxical because the more they want to make money, the more they need these rules,” said Santos (not about the Strib in particular). Seems the Strib editors haven’t changed old assumptions: one must first realize that building bridges and training staff to interact with readers is now part of the journalistic equation, which isn’t limited to news-gathering anymore.

To an extent, the rise of the readers’ editor comes not because of scandals on the journalistic side, but in reaction to the growing voice of the audience. It’s a natural byproduct of Web 2.0.

Is the role of the ombudsman more important in the new media world? “Yes, it is. I don’t doubt that,” said Santos.

For starters, “appointing an ombudsman means a news outlet is concerned with the quality and accuracy of its information.” It sends a statement of credibility and seriousness to readers generally more skeptical of online news. “New media want to adopt some of the standards of the so-called old media” because they often lack the credibility of traditional media, and haven’t fully developed a code of ethics and regulations. In this situation, newspaper websites are at an advantage because they inherit from their traditional journalistic background and prudence. This can also put papers at a disadvantage, because they are naturally more resistant to ethical and digital risk-taking.

For all Internet players, newspapers included, “we’re still trying to build, not just news outlets, but institutions with public values formed in a sort of informal consensus,” said Santos – all media are in the process of recreating ethics for online journalism. Besides his traditional tasks of addressing reader complaints (about 50 emails per day), which are usually similar to print standards, the ombudsman is essential in making sure online media will eventually grasp ethical standards, and be perceived as such by the public.

Issues of libel, user comments and copyright are only a few of the concerns more present in the online world – and which need a specialist to be addressed. In the UK, while this hasn’t been clearly tested yet, newspapers could potentially be liable for user comments posted on their sites. In one case, Santos had to address complaints to pull down a forum in which hooligans were organizing street fights. He also must regularly temper readers angry at the Conversa Afiadas (Sharp Talk) political blog.

 Although the table is in Portugese, few of the requests Santos gets relate to content (53 for October 2007). Most of the issues Santos treats relate to iG products and their usage.

Santos isn’t simply a link between readers and the outlet, he is also “seen as the last savior for some extreme situations.” And since he has taken up this job at iG, the effects have shown. After recurrent requests, users got the upper hand by forcing the site to publish correction boxes – an unusual practice in online news. Now the iG news site even has a ‘Corrections’ section. Through Santos, readers also prompted iG to publish a fixed code of ethics and regulations, similar to the code book used in most print newspapers. If sufficient readers send letters about an article, Santos can also go find the journalist (who are still typically reluctant to enter the conversation or respond to criticisms) to get him to answer.

At a time when nearly all traditional media are transitioning to the Web and to new sets of rules, the ombudsman is a good way to safeguard a company’s brand name and credibility – newspapers’ biggest advantage as news sources.

“In this post–Jayson Blair era, when news outlets are recognizing the greater need for transparency, the ranks of ombudsmen are expanding both nationally and globally,” Jurkowitz wrote.

More newspapers and news outlets have understood the importance of ombudsmen in the past 15 years, who “are becoming a natural part of the landscape” in Brazil, said Santos.

The rise of the online ombudsman shouldn’t be seen merely as a response to audience threats and complaints, but as an efficient way to embrace the new media landscape: as all parties now have channel to voice their concerns, the ombudsman is newspapers’ door into dialogue.

Source: Mario Vitor Santos, online ombudsman Internet Group