A 'Prince' public editor

I know, however, that it would be a mistake for me not to recognize that many of the more stinging criticisms of my own columns are grounded in brutal, constructive honesty. And while I can’t speak for other sections with any authority, I’m fairly confident that the ‘Prince’ managing board understands that the paper ought to internalize the criticism that is on display on its website. Former ‘Prince’ editor-in-chief Jack Ackerman used his farewell column to solicit criticism from readers, and his successor, Gabriel Debenedetti, reiterated the paper’s receptivity to complaints in his column on Monday, writing, “We must be able to learn from the comments left on our stories.”

In that spirit, I hope it’s not too tacky for me to use this space to suggest a change for the ‘Prince.’ Given Debenedetti’s acknowledgment on Monday that there is always room for improvement on our part, this paper would do well to appoint a public editor to examine the most serious concerns regarding ‘Prince’ coverage.

I suspect that the most vocal critics of the ‘Prince’ won’t be impressed by such an addition. “We don’t need an ombudsman to amplify our voices,” they may post in response to this column. “Our concerns are important regardless of whether or not the ‘Prince’ stamps them with a seal of approval.” And when it comes to thoughtful and constructive critiques made in the comment pages, the latter point is certainly correct. But as it stands now, there’s no guarantee that readers or even ‘Prince’ staffers will be exposed to the best points raised in response to ‘Prince’ output. A public editor would be able to bring these concerns to the attention of a wider audience and, consequently, increase the likelihood that the ‘Prince’ would be responsive to these critiques.

I hesitate to articulate too specific a vision of the form this proposal would take if implemented, as I’m sure that there are plenty of workable approaches. But I will make some suggestions:

The public editor selected by the managing board should probably be brought in from outside the ‘Prince.’ He or she need not even be an undergraduate. The Harvard Crimson paid a law student to become its ombudsman in 2007, and I suspect that in the case of the ‘Prince,’ a graduate student would face fewer conflicts of interest than would an undergraduate. Professors also ought to be considered for the role, though I don’t know how many would be interested.

As for the column’s format, while the public editor need not be forced to write as frequently as regular columnists, it would be a shame if he or she only chimed in whenever an issue worth an 800-word analysis presented itself. Ideally, he or she would scan the ‘Prince’ (and the comments) for any items of interest; lines of inquiry not followed sufficiently by reporters or questionable headlines. These might be addressed in columns comprised of multiple short, unconnected observations regarding the paper’s output.

Finally, the public editor need not focus entirely on places where the ‘Prince’ has erred. He or she ought to devote some time to defending the ‘Prince’ from unfair attacks. Further, the public editor could provide readers with a window into the journalistic process. In the aftermath of a controversial story, he or she could interview reporters, sources (at least those already cited by name in the story in question) and editors to provide readers with some understanding of the context of the controversy, lending his or her analysis of ‘Prince’ coverage more depth.

Last year, the ‘Prince’ wrote an incredibly controversial series about Greek life on campus. The stories presented a special kind of reporting challenge given the subjects’ inability to say much on the record in their own defense. I would have loved to see some subsequent assessment in the pages of the ‘Prince’ of how well the reporters met those challenges. Looking ahead, this year’s managing board has promised the launch of an investigative unit. It’s a bold move that will pay off enormously if handled properly. However, the group’s mission makes it vulnerable to the assumption that it will sensationalize news. I can’t think of a better way for the ‘Prince’ to assure readers that this will not be the case than by elevating an ombudsman with a mandate to call its reporters out when they cross the line.