WP: If a newspaper seemingly refuses to employ an independent ombudsman....

[xocet]

Washington Post Will Fill Vacant Reader Rep Role, But Not Revive Ombudsman
Former Ombuds Urge Return to "Truly Independent" Internal Reviewer; Hiatt Declines

Blog ››› January 10, 2014 2:22 PM EST ››› JOE STRUPP

After revealing this week that its reader representative had departed, The Washington Post confirmed Friday that there will be a replacement. But the paper made clear that it will not revive the popular ombudsman position that the reader representative supplanted last year.

"We will not bring the ombudsman back," Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt said in an email. "We will continue to have someone in a reader rep role." He did not indicate when that person would be named.

Hiatt said that while ombudsmen have made valuable contributions to the paper in the past, "we are in an era when we have to make difficult choices."

The decision comes as former Post ombudsmen and others who hold similar jobs elsewhere urge the paper to bring back the ombudsman job, citing the need for independent reviews.

...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/10/washington-post-will-fill-vacant-reader-rep-rol/197533

Does it make a difference if only a so-called "reader representative" is employed? Is this why the Capehart/Sanders Photograph situation has been allowed to linger?

Who at the Washington Post bears responsibility for the paper's credibility?

[HooptieWagon]

1. The WaPo is owned by Amazon's Jeff Bezos.

I assume a handfull of top executives are personally hired by him, and given a directive to message his billionaire libertarian views. That's acknowledged. However, if the paper wants to retain credibility, they need to maintain policies of journalistic standards and ethics. Jonathan Capehart failed both, badly.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. That's easy, no one is responsible for their credibility as they have none to be responsible for.

Free as birds of all standards, ethics, facts or basic decency. Life is simple at the Post.