Michele McLellan delivered this speech to the Association of Turkish Journalists on Sept. 13, 1999, at an all-day conference in Istanbul on "Quality and Self-Control in the Media."

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today in Istanbul.

The first time I visited your city, I stayed three days and it wasn't enough. Now I am here for 10 days and it still isn't enough. So I am thinking perhaps next time I should stay for a few years!

I am equally honored to be invited to speak to you today on important topics of journalism: Credibility with the public and how the ombudsman can help strengthen public trust in media.

The fact that so many of you have taken the time to organize and attend this conference speaks well of the vitality of the Turkish press and the desire of Turkish journalists to attain excellence.

Unfortunately, right now American media may teach you more about how to lose credibility with the public than how to gain and keep credibility.

At the same time, much of the press in the United States is seeking to improve -- even reform itself. And the work of ombudsmen is a key part of that effort.

So today I will talk a bit about some of the very serious problems with American media. But I also hope to make you understand the optimism I feel about journalism.

An independent press that strives to put the public interest first can help society accomplish much over time. An ombudsman can be a strong and consistent voice for the public in that process.

In the United States, the first newspaper ombudsman was appointed in 1967. But the position remains more the exception than the rule. For example, there are fewer than 40 ombudsmen in the U.S. even though there are more than 1,500 daily newspapers and many more television and radio stations and magazines.

Recently, American newspaper editors are giving more attention to the idea of an ombudsman. Several newspapers have added the position in the past few years. The interest is tied to a decline in the credibility of media in the eyes of the public. This is very much a time of turmoil and paradox in the American media.

One paradox:

The longstanding "watchdog" function of the press is more important than ever. The press must be alert for abuses or failures to live up to accepted standards by the powerful, including the government. This is a central role of a free press in the United States. Similarly, the role of the press in making intelligent and unbiased decisions about the news and information that appears in print or is aired is paramount to the functioning of a democratic society.

But even as these functions become more critical to society, the media stray from these traditional roles. As a result, the public is less and less likely to trust "mainstream" media. Even the most prestigious of the national and regional newspapers in the United States, which historically have been considered the most credible, suffer from this loss of trust by the public. And the press cannot play an informative and constructive role in public debate without public trust.

Tom Rosenstiel, a respected American journalist and press critic, puts it this way:

"If the public does not trust the press, it will turn away from public dialogue. The deep sense of boredom the public feels toward Washington...may be a warning sign.

"If the press turns away from the public service mission of journalism, from providing citizens with the information necessary to make self government work, that has equally frightening implications.

"As Joseph Pulitzer said 93 years ago, 'A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself.'" Another paradox of the media in the U.S.:

The American media have remarkable freedom. The Constitution allows complete freedom of the press in recognition of the vital role we play in helping to further important public discussions and expose abuse of power.

At the same time, however, ownership of newspapers and other media has shifted dramatically, from small and local ownership to ownership by large corporations.

With this, much of the media is becoming more commercial and more short-sighted about profits over quality. And even as many editors and television news directors try to provide serious coverage of serious issues, newspapers and television are reaching out to readers more and more with entertainment news, celebrity stories, superficial trend stories and tear jerkers. We even have a word for this mix of information and entertainment: "infotainment."

Here, the result is that the public increasingly sees the media trying to have it both ways. The media want to use the freedoms designed to guarantee they can assist the public debate unfettered in order to lure more readers for money-making purposes.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton is an example of press failure. This momentous event revolved around sordid details of an extra-marital affair.

No detail was too small and no source too unreliable to see print. The public got angry, and rightfully so.

One national survey said:

"Majorities of the public characterized the coverage as excessive (80 percent), embarrassing (71 percent), biased (67 percent), disappointing (66 percent), irresponsible (60 percent) and disgusting (57 percent). Moreover, two-thirds (65 percent) said the Clinton/Lewinsky story was not important enough to deserve the level of coverage it has received."

The pollsters said: "This is not to say that Americans do not want the press to investigate vigorously allegations of presidential misconduct should they arise....Apparently, though, most Americans consider the Lewinsky allegations to be exempt from this mandate, defining them as a private matter and, hence, off-limits to the press."

Eighty percent in the survey said the media were driven more by a need to attract an audience than by a desire to get to the truth.

The concerns about motivation hint at what may be the most disturbing lesson. The public supports the idea that a free and responsible press is vital. A press that lowers its standards at the first hint of competition may be an information source fewer and fewer people will trust.

As you might imagine, much of the competitive fervor that drives these missteps results from the increased availability of information from other sources.

The Internet, especially, sped up the pace of the Clinton story and drove down journalistic standards.

In the past two decades, the public's trust in American media has been falling like a lead balloon. The Internet appears to be accelerating the process.

People who have access to a wide range of information from a wide range of sources are more apt to question what they see in mainstream newspapers and television.

Christine Urban, a respected American researcher, did a detailed study of public attitudes toward the media last year.

Her findings were harsh: "...there are too many factual errors and spelling or grammar mistakes in newspapers....

"Small errors undermine public confidence in the press....

"The public perceives that newspapers don't consistently demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities....

"The public suspects that the points of view and biases of journalists influence what stories are covered and how they are covered....

"All we want is fair play and neutrality, and please keep your opinions on the editorial page, Americans say....

"The public believes that newspapers over-cover sensational stories because they're exciting and they sell papers. They don't believe these stories deserve the attention and play they get....

"The public feels that newsroom values and practices are sometimes in conflict with their own priorities for their newspapers....

"... the public places a much higher value than do journalists on protecting the privacy of people in situations that most journalists would consider 'news.'

I think much of the problem arises from a growing disconnection between journalists and the public in America.

The traditional role of the press has been to protect the public from powerful elites.

Today, the media are part of the elite, culturally, educationally and especially economically. Without these key connections to the greater public, the media should be listening to the public more. Instead, the media in recent decades have listened less.

That is the overarching truth we all must face. We cannot be expert journalists or experts in the topics we cover unless we know how the general public experiences what we are covering, what questions they have about the topic and what insights they can offer.

Enter, the ombudsman.

As the important link between press and public wears thin, the ombudsman can play a critical role in helping re-establish the credibility of his or her newspaper or television station or other media operation.

The first job of the ombudsman is to investigate public complaints about the news organization and to hold it to account when it fails to meet accepted standards.

As you can imagine, this puts the ombudsman in a very difficult position, with one foot in the newsroom and one foot in the public and both sides usually complaining!

But the job also has significant potential to make journalism better. The ombudsman can work with the staff to understand public complaints and use them to improve journalism. At the same time, he or she can explain media practices and standards to the public in order to help put both routine and controversial decisions in context.

You will find that different ombudsmen perform the job in different ways in the United States.

Ideally, the ombudsman job is full-time. For one thing, this allows the person to fully develop the position -- to be more than someone who simply passes on complaints. Also, this allows the ombudsman to be more independent -- the person is evaluating a product in which he or she has less investment or stake than one working on the paper every day.

I will discuss six key tasks of the ombudsman.

1. Reader complaints and comments

These may flood in. I receive about 10,000 a year in telephone calls, e-mails, letters. People will call about errors in the paper -- the usual names misspelled, or other facts wrong. People will call if they think a story shows bias. People will call if they don't like a headline. Or if they think a photo is offensive. Or they don't like the cartoons.

It is important to answer as many as possible. I have an assistant so I can usually respond to all.

This is important. People who feel their comments are ignored will see their complaints validated.

2. Reader outreach

Calls and letters represent the most vocal among the public. It is a good idea to find others willing to discuss the newspaper. The ombudsman may be invited to speak before civic groups. Or she can organize discussion groups. I do this often, at least once a month to get a reality check on the paper.

3. Communications with staff

It is important to let the staff know what readers are saying. Some ombudsmen write a daily or weekly memo to the staff summarizing the complaints and examining major ones. I post summaries of calls on a bulletin board and it is very well read by the staff.

The ombudsman may also organize discussions and training on topics, such as ethics. He should avoid involvement in actual decisions.

4. Reader communications

The ombudsman must not be the only one the public can call. And he or she should not become a barrier to direct communications. At my newspaper, every staff story has the writer's phone number and e-mail address at the bottom. The same information about editors runs on Page 2 every day.

I ask writers and editors of major stories what calls or e-mails they have received and put summaries of those comments on the bullet board and in my columns.

As you might imagine, calls of praise usually go to the writer while complaints tend to come to me!

5. Corrections

It is important to acknowledge errors in print and provide the accurate information that should have been published in the first place. My paper places these on Page 2 every day. Others run them on Page 1 or in the place where the error appeared.

At some newspapers, the ombudsman has final say on running a correction and should lean towards publication. Many of us have a natural reluctance to acknowledge mistakes publicly. The ombudsman's role is to bring detachment to the decision on behalf of readers.

6. Columns

Most ombudsmen write a weekly column that airs reader complaints and assesses whether the newspaper is living up to accepted standards. Columns may also explain policies of the newspaper or examine broad journalistic issues.

The ombudsman may also recommend other press criticism for publication on the opinion pages.

Independence is the key to ombudsmanship. Publishers and editors who want an ombudsman must be ready to take criticism, to see complaints aired publicly and to let the ombudsman offer his or her assessments freely even if they don't agree. In short, it is no good to be the ombudsman for a news organization whose executives really just want window-dressing.

At my own newspaper, I have had wide freedom in offering my views to the public and within the newsroom. My own editor, Sandra Rowe, does not always agree with me and sometimes we debate quite a bit when I am writing my weekly column.

When it comes to the quality of the newspaper, she will often want me to see the situation as one where the cup is half full. I just as often see it as half empty. Both of us are somewhat right. But it is important that I try to present the situation as readers see it.

Even though we debate, it is understood that the editor will not tell me what to write and there will be no repercussions if I write something she or other editors do not agree with. And I have done so many times.

Above all, though, the key to maintaining independence does not derive solely from a guarantee from the editor or publisher. I think a good ombudsman must develop a mindset that challenges the thinking of journalists and the public alike while retaining empathy for both groups.

Another important qualification for the ombudsman is having experience as a journalist. I think someone who knows a lot about journalism and has been through many of the situations that come up is best qualified to judge the work. The more experienced journalist also will tend to have more credibility from the public and fellow journalists and a greater ability to put problems and accomplishments in perspective.

I had been a journalist, mostly an editor, for more than 20 years when I became the public editor at The Oregonian in 1996. I have drawn every day on my own earlier experience. I also have found it helpful that I have had teaching and management experience as I do a fair amount of public speaking and teaching in the newsroom.

It's important that the ombudsman, who may be largely perceived in the critic role, be able to shift into the teaching mode in the newsroom and with the public.

As we all know, when it comes to dealing with our smart, strong-minded fellow journalists, it is important to show, not tell.

An ombudsman who is not fair and consistent will not be successful. The ombudsman judges the sins of journalism, so he or she cannot commit those sins.

This can be very difficult for a number of reasons. For one thing, the ombudsman may receive constant negative reinforcement from both public and staff. It's easy to become what we call a nit-picker, someone who worries so much about the details that he is no longer able to see the larger picture.

For another, the ombudsman may be placed in a combative position, either by angry readers or defensive colleagues or both. I will be honest with you. It is sometimes very hard to hold one's temper in check. But it is important to do so in talking to the people involved and in deciding what to write.

Another pressure in this area is the desire to have an interesting column. We all know a spanking makes more interesting reading than a balanced airing of all views. But ultimately, the balanced airing lends more to the public debate and understanding of the work of the journalist. And it also models for journalists and the public alike a fair-minded approach that everyone should try to take in public discussions.

This is far from easy.

For one thing, the public can be difficult to deal with and to understand. For example, the ombudsman may hear from a reader -- usually a very loud and persistent one -- that the entire newspaper is biased.

It may take a while of listening before the ombudsman can understand the reader really is angry, with justification, about the tendency of one or two writers to use loaded words or stereotypical labels to describe certain groups of people or their beliefs.

One example in the United States: Christians who espouse old-fashioned moral values. Many would consider this a good thing, others would not. But journalists refer to them as right-wingers or extremists, which makes them sound bad. I think it is for the reader to decide in this case what is good or bad. The journalist should provide precise descriptions of beliefs or proposals from which the reader will make a judgment.

Understanding the complaint is only the first step. We journalists have a variety of defense mechanisms that seem to come into play as soon as the ombudsman mentions a call from a reader.

One is the attitude that if we understood what we were trying to say, the reader should understand too. This excuse for lack of clarity strikes me as arrogant nonsense.

Another favorite defense is that the journalist didn't have time to do the best job possible. Of course in our work, deadlines come very quickly. But if our professional responsibility is to strive for excellence, why can't we listen to readers' ideas for future improvements?

The greatest arrogance, I think, is the belief by many of us that we know what is best for the readers no matter what they say.

If journalism is first and foremost service to the public, how can we say the public cannot be involved in determining our standards and holding us to them?

The ombudsman provides this link. But I must say to you that he or she cannot do it alone.

The ownership and management of media must be willing to risk public criticism. And working journalists must understand that the discomfort of criticism is worth the opportunity to improve.

Together with the public we must define excellence for our publication and strive to achieve it.

The ombudsman plays a key role, but this is the work we all share.

Thank you.