“Ghost of Timmy” (presumably Tim Shea) writes:

“Any chance the Hatchet will get an ombudsman? Seems that when people have an issue with a Hatchet story, they have 3 options: 1) write a letter to the editor about it; 2) send angry messages to the Hatchet; or 3) do nothing about it other than grumble. If there was a Hatchet ombudsman, then unhappy readers could channel their concerns to that person who would then be able to look into them and report back to the readership. In an age of greater media transparency, this would hold the Hatchet as accountable to its audience as it holds University administrators and their decision-making.”

Thank you for your query “Ghost of Timmy.”

The suggestion that The Hatchet bring on an ombudsman is an intriguing one. Editors have tossed the idea around in the last few months, and an acquaintance of mine, Aaron Connelly, called for an ombudsman in a column published last week. While you are correct in asserting that this newspaper should be subjected to the same scrutiny as administrators, I don’t think an ombudsman is necessary for three reasons:

1. I think there are ample mechanisms in place through which readers can lodge their complaints. The Hatchet is not housed in some imposing security- and secretary-laden structure like The Times or The Post. Students can come into the office, located at 2140 G St. across from DJ’s Fastbreak, and get instant access to an editor. Some students have tried this avenue, and while they may not have gotten what they thought was an adequate resolution to their gripes, they certainly got to address them to the relevant person(s). They can also call me, at 202-994-1313 (office) or 202-251-2703 (cell). If a complaint leads to a correction, we will print it. If there are broader, legitimate questions about our coverage — such as when we printed a photograph of a deceased student in March 2004 — we will address them, either in the opinions section or this blog.

2. If we had the position, I don’t know who’d fill it. Professional newspapers have the advantage of picking seasoned journalists as their liasons to the public. The Hatchet ombudsman would need to be an experienced college journalist with intimate knowledge of the newspaper’s inner workings — in other words, a former editor. I’m not sure The Hatchet could, year after year, find someone with the requisite qualifications to be an ombudsman. A few editors have suggested that our ombudsman be Mosheh Oinounou, the 2003-2004 editor in chief who is currently a grad student. He’d do a great job. But following his graduation in May, we would need another ombudsman, and there are no other Moshehs around (thank God).

3. Having an ombudsman would deprive me of one of my primary responsiblities (and people already say I don’t do enough around here). I spend a decent amount of time fielding questions, complaints and kudos from the GW community. The Hatchet already has a person who “unhappy readers could channel their concerns to” – me.

I don’t think our readers only have three options when they have a complaint. Nor do I want them to “do nothing about it other than grumble.”

I do think the newspaper could better advertise it’s avenues for redress, with house advertisements and through this blog.

In sum, PLEASE SEND ME YOUR COMPLAINTS.

Thanks.

Michael Barnett