Public criticism of political news coverage cries out for the return of the public editor

In the lead-up to the presidential election, criticism of the news media’s coverage of the race between President Biden and former president Donald Trump has become a cottage industry of sorts. And one of the main targets has been the outlet once known and revered as the paper of record: The New York Times.

The complaints vary but center around some common themes: Some say the Times’s political news coverage has become so hyperfocused on the odds of the race (will “uncommitted” voters sink Biden?) that it misses the stakes (another Trump term could destroy our already fragile democracy). Some decry false equivalences (too much coverage on allegations of Biden’s memory problems, not enough coverage of Trump’s insurrection problem).

But there is one particular charge that the Times (and any other outlet) would be foolish to ignore: that it doesn’t seem to care enough about how the public views its coverage.

The Times’ publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, said in a recent interview that while some critics raise legitimate gripes,“not all criticism, and not even all good criticism, is aimed really at correcting the record.”

“Often it’s aimed at intimidating independent reporting,” Sulzberger told the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. “So our job is to help give the staff

Ombudspeople, also known as public editors, are staff members at news organizations who are tasked with being a liaison between the newsroom and the public.

confidence to do stories that explore unpopular positions.”

With respect, Sulzberger isn’t reading the room. The criticism I’ve seen most doesn’t express qualms with unpopular opinions. It rejects political coverage sorely lacking in context, informed analysis, and a clear view of the consequences of the election’s results. And that’s a frustration that I, as a journalist, share. At a time when trust in legacy media outlets is tanking, leaders in journalism cannot afford to miss what they are being told.

But there is one step the Times (and The Boston Globe, for that matter) can take immediately to at least signal that these reasonable critiques are being heard: Bring back the position of the ombudsperson.

Ombudspeople, also known as public editors, are staff members at news organizations who are tasked with being a liaison between the newsroom and the public. They hear complaints, evaluate the organization’s coverage, and report out the findings. They make sure that journalists don’t live in silos, but they also help the public better understand the values of good journalism and dogged reporting.

Such a position is not a panacea for restoring the public trust, but it’s a good start. And though outside media critics abound, they do not serve the same purpose. After all, they have their own clicks to garner.

“That is a problem with media criticism in general: A lot of hot takes, not all that much reporting,” said Dan Kennedy, a Northeastern University professor and media critic. “With an ombudsperson or public editor, they are going to do the reporting. They are going to do the research. That is valuable.”

And it can help journalists be more self-aware while not placing the burden of public criticism on individual reporters, who are usually not in a position to make the sort of organization-wide changes that are often necessary to restore public confidence.

A perfect example is a recent set of exchanges on the social media site Threads that resulted from Times reporter Ken Vogel posting the above comments from Sulzberger.

Vogel lamented the “mounting pressures facing journalists — especially those covering politics — from audiences who want journalism to reflect their views back to them.”

Folks in the replies weren’t having it.

“This isn’t why you’re being criticized,” posted Rachel Vindman, cohost of the The Suburban Women Problem podcast and wife of retired US Army lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman, who testified in the first Trump impeachment proceedings. “You clearly do not understand the ground swell of disgust with @nytimes but you’ll get there … and by then it will be too late because the damage has been done,” Vindman posted.

Public editors can help buffer that damage, but there are obstacles to that role. One is most news organizations can’t afford them, given the financial hits they have taken in recent years. But the Times, which continues to see its revenue rise, and the likewise-profitable Globe can. They both used to have such a position. They can easily bring them back as a signal that they value public trust.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is this: It was always a lousy job to do. In 2024, it’d probably be worse. But it’s never been more needed.

Take it from Margaret Sullivan, former Times public editor, considered by many to have been one of the best.

“I sometimes joke ‘it’s another good day not to be the New York Times public editor,’ ” Sullivan posted on X, “but the organization could *really* use one right now to investigate on behalf of the readers.”

Hear, hear!