The New York Times has released its internal report and review of the Jayson Blair affair and related issues that recently rocked 43rd St. and toppled Howell Raines. It’s 92 pages long and I haven’t read it all yet. The big news seems to be that the paper is finally appointing an ombudsman. But perhaps in an effort to show some deference to the paper’s many statements over the years that it didn’t need an ombudsman, didn’t want an ombudsman, and indeed sneered all over the concept of an ombudsman — that’s only for weenie papers! — it will label this new position “public editor.”
Which just leaves me thinking, public editor? Wouldn’t that be someone who edits the public? If this person is the public editor, does that mean all the other editors at the Times are “private” editors? Couldn’t the entire collective editorial brain of the Times come up with a better title?