'Star Tribune' Ombud Blasts Paper for Not Replacing Her

By: Joe Strupp Outgoing Reader Representative Kate Parry of The Star Tribune in Minneapolis used her final column to criticize the paper for deciding not to replace her when she takes another post at the daily.

In a column titled, "Farewell, with reservations, from the reader's rep," Parry said the paper's decision to leave the post open, and likely have other editors handle reader responses and concerns, is "not good news for readers."

"When I stepped out of an editing job several years ago to become your reader's representative, my plan was to do this strange and fascinating job for about three years," she writes in the Sunday piece. "That self-imposed deadline is coming right up. On Monday I'll leave the post of ombudsman and return to editing....I wish I could tell you that a fresh, new ombudsman waits in the wings, eager to advocate for you in the newsroom and fill this column space each Sunday with constructive criticism or explanations of the editors' decisions. That healthy openness has been this newspaper's hallmark of ethical self-policing for more than 35 years.

"But that is not what is happening," she continues. "The position as it has been known all those years is ending, a victim of staff downsizing. In announcing her decision, Editor Nancy Barnes used more delicate language, saying it was being left 'open' and holding out the prospect that a part-time version might be considered in the future. In a final act as your reader's representative, I feel compelled to say this is a lousy decision that does not serve readers or the quality of journalism in this newspaper. Even if a part-time version of this very full-time job is attempted, it would have to leave out some core functions that defined this job as an ombudsman rather than something else."

Parry refers to a recent Barnes' explanation, in which Barnes declared: "At a time when resources are tight, we have had to make some very difficult decisions about how every resource is being used. Right now, I believe we owe the readers more smart journalists reporting and editing the news than critiquing the news. Kate is one of those people, and we're lucky to have her. I am committed to being honest and forthright with our readers about what is going on at this paper. That's why top editors will write regularly about how and why the news is covered, and why we will resume an editors' blog. It's not a perfect solution."

Still, that does not seem to ease Parry, who writes in her piece: "I've worked at newspapers with an ombudsman and without. The difference is vivid in the quality of attention to readers' concerns. Although the probing function of an ombudsman may be fleetingly uncomfortable, it is ultimately a sign of strength, not weakness, when a newspaper welcomes tough public scrutiny and fair criticism."

The entire column can be found here.