Early liberal support for this war was the key ingredient in selling it to a majority of the public. I realize this is something that no one in the media — nor most of us — really wants to discuss. Who among us wants to feel the pain of having to remember that liberals, by joining with Bush, made this war happen?

I’m no politician. But I am a professional journalist, who at the time was irritated beyond insubordination. I weep for the loss of human life thanks to our so-called liberal media. And like Moore:

I blame the New York Times more for this war than Bush. I expected Bush and Cheney to try and get away with what they did. But the Times — and the rest of the press — was supposed to STOP them by doing their job: Be a relentless watchdog of government and business — and then inform the public so we can take action.

Instead, the New York Times gave the Bush administration the cover they needed. They could — and did — say, ‘Hey, look, even the Times says Saddam has WMD!

With this groundwork laid, the Bush crowd ended up convincing a whopping 70% of the public to support the war — a public that had given him less than 48% of its vote in 2000.

And today? Our so-called news media are still making us sick (see here and here).

— C.B. Hanif

“In print, the Guardian is, even now, the ninth or 10th biggest paper in Britain. On the web it is, by most measurements, the second best-read English-language newspaper in the world. If the New York Times really does start charging for access, the Guardian may become the newspaper with the largest web English-speaking readership in the world.” — Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor-in-chief

Under Rusbridger’s leadership The Guardian already was becoming a leader in ombudsmanship. The paper’s newly established ombud, Ian Mayes, soon was elected ONO’s president. The newspaper went on to host a subsequent London meeting of ONO.

Just as significant is that The Guardian has been a consistent trailblazer in the online possibilities that U.S. newspapers in particular still are trying to get right. The latest exhibit is Rusbridger’s report that:

“In December the journalism we’re producing (was) read by 37 million people around the world – very roughly a third in the UK, a third in North America and a third in the rest of the world,”

Which gets me to The New York Times’ announcement that readers soon will have to pay to play — er, read — some of that publication’s content online.

Already anticipating BuzzMachine.com blogger Jeff Jervis’ take on this, I was not surprised to find him sharing a link to Rusbridger’s observations, such as:

“It may be right for the Times of London and New York, but not for everyone. It may be right at some point for everybody in the future, but not yet.”

Rusbridger’s detailed insight is worth a thorough read.

For additional ONO perspective, here’s my earlier post regarding our  Harvard meeting, during which both Rusbridger and Jarvis spoke.

—

Last, a nod to my outstanding ombudsman colleagues Jamie Gold, who after 10 years is leaving the Los Angeles Times, and Siobhain Butterworth, who after 13 years is leaving The Guardian.

I’m hoping to see both again at our upcoming meeting in Oxford. Some good news in the meantime: Both report their newspapers are appointing successors; the Times already, The Guardian by the end of February.

In contrast, I recall from our president’s update during our last meeting that, with news ombudsmen already rare, readers of U.S. newspapers lost 12 in the previous year.

To my knowledge there no longer are any news ombudsmen in Florida.

From our recent Washington, D.C. conference of the world’s news ombudsmen, I came away thinking that we members of the international Organization of News Ombudsmen don’t have The Answer for newspapers either. At least, not here in the USA.

Our group’s president, Stephen Pritchard, reported that since last year’s meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, U.S. newspapers have lost 12 ombudsmen, including yours truly, to buyouts, retirement, layoffs or some other budget-motivated downsizing. Of course, the overall number of professional news journalists no longer serving U.S. readers is staggering.

This year’s ONO meeting began with a reception at the board rooms of National Public Radio, a tour of NPR’s recording studios and an opportunity to observe a taping of NPR’s trademark All Things Considered.

(See the conference agenda here; a photo slideshow here; the audio and video of a notable panel and the text of some presentations here.)

Our sessions continued at The Washington Post, the Newseum, NPR and The New York Times’ Washington bureau.

And repeatedly, during formal and informal comments over the next three days, colleagues from as far afield as Eastern Europe and South America reported a different story from that in the U.S. — namely, flourishing rather than waning support for newspapers.

During the past decade I reported to Palm Beach Post readers the surging interest in ombudsmanship abroad compared to the U.S. ( for example here and here).

In his post-conference column, Janne Anderson, ombudsman for Stockholm’s TV4, provided the typical kind of report I gave Post readers over the years, including:

“The U.S. ombudsmen are quite worried and the whole conference was colored by this anxiety but also by many discussions and suggestions about how media ombudsmen can survive and whether they will have a future?”

Meanwhile, from the former Soviet republics to East African countries such as Kenya and Tanzania, there is emerging interest in quality news journalism. That’s in contrast to its decline in the U.S., notably showcased in the Judith Miller debacle at The New York Times, and the supine behavior of U.S. news organizations in general, in helping promote our country’s invasion of Iraq.

(For which, our colleagues from elsewhere continue to remind us, there has been little accountability. Sure, there is U.S. newspapers’ Internet-devasted business model. But also too-often damnable performance. But that’s another post.)

A new trend around the world is media organizations emerging from decades of dictatorial repression or state censorship, reaffirming their commitment to be accurate, fair and transparent — and wanting to establish an ombudsman role.

Alicia Shepard, NPR’s ombudsman, spelled this out in her column following last year’s sessions. For example, she quoted Pam Platt, then ONO’s president as well as the public editor at the Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal, the first U.S. newspaper to establish the position: “Ombudsmen are growing in parts of the world where a free press is starting to assert itself.”

Shepard concluded by noting that “the editorial director for Kenya’s Nation Media Group has asked ONO for help in writing a job profile so he can hire an in-house critic. Considering the dozens of polls that repeatedly tell of the media’s loss of credibility in this country, it is unfortunate that more U.S. news outlets aren’t willing to take this same step toward regaining public esteem.”

Similarly, TV4′s Anderson reported this year that “A number of media companies from various countries in Africa want ombudsmen and have requested help from the ONO.”

One result of such interest has been the demand by foreign members that more ONO meetings be held outside the U.S. Reflecting that sentiment, “Next year will be the ONO conference’s 30th anniversary,” wrote my Swedish colleague. “It will be held in Capetown, South Africa.”

In a previous post I mentioned The Coastal Star newspaper, one of the publications in which my freelance work appears, and the Palm Beach Arts Paper. The feedback I’m hearing regarding them and the South Florida Times, another newspaper for which I write, suggests an encouraging future for quality journalism whether delivered via print, broadcast, online or whatever technology provides next.

The big question in the U.S., however, is not news. It still is whether quality newspapers will prove to be the exception rather than the rule.