Most of us rely on newspapers--often they are the only source-- for gleaning facts and to know about the latest developments taking place around the world. We decide which candidate to vote for, which car to buy, which movie to watch, find out whether plunging necklines are in or out of fashion and so on, based on media reports. We don't question their veracity because we trust in the essential truthfulness of the media. So long as the media doesn't deviate from the principle of objective reportage, the readers are safe in forming their opinions based on what the media tells us.

However, problem arises when the media deliberately or unwittingly feeds us news that is factually incorrect, which might lead us, the unsuspecting readers, to jump to false conclusions. Imagine the implications if what we read as authentic reports turn out to be stories that are planted by private lobby to push its agenda. Worse, we will have been taken for a ride, if the media is found guilty of playing up (or underplaying) certain stories to sway the public opinion to suit its own hidden brief.

In India, we have no mechanism to address such readers' concerns about newspapers straying away from truth. The closest we have to an outlet of readers' grievances is the letters-to-the-editors column, which, in any case, is inadequate and edited heavily to weed out comments uncharitable to the newspaper. It all boils down to one fact: the public doesn't have a representative in the media on their behalf who can rap over their (media's) knuckles and tell them when and where they have gone wrong.

In the western countries, major newspapers have a post created for a public representative, known as Ombudsman, to look after the readers' complaints. He is given wide guarantees of independence, and acts as the interface between the newspaper and the public. Usually an experienced journalist, an Ombudsman works outside the managerial and editorial structure of the newspaper and reports either to the Chief Editor or the publisher directly.

An ombudsman analyses the readers' complaints and suggestions, and if he finds them justified he brings them to the notice of the editors and reporters responsible for them for remedial actions. Often he writes a weekly column to clarify the readers' doubts, and if need be he can take liberties to criticise the newspaper for its transgressions.

The most recent and famous case of newspaper scandal is that of Jayson Blair, a star reporter of the New York Times, who was found guilty of plagiarising and fabrication in about three dozens of the reports he filed. The scandal rocked journalism world and hit at the core of the credibility of the New York Times, arguably the world's most powerful and respected newspaper. It led to the resignation of the black sheep reporter, and with him two of the newspaper's senior editors--Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd. Following this disgraceful incident, the Times named the former editor of Life magazine, Daniel Okrent, as its ombudsman (but it calls it "public editor").

Despite this shocking isolated incident in its history, Times has always been a stickler of accuracy. Even before the Jayson Blair scandal, Times took great pain in ensuring accuracy of its news stories, and to publish corrections whenever any story is found out to be error-ridden. On average, it runs seven or eight corrections per day. In 2002, it ran a total of 2,867 corrections. It even attempts to undo the mistakes that were made even decades ago. For instance, in 1969, the paper corrected an error made in a 1920 piece about rocket inventor Robert H. Goddard's theories. The article ridiculed Goddard's view that a rocket could travel in the vacuum of space.

This newspaper is so fond of its corrections of every misspelling, transposed digits, historical inaccuracy and other bloomers that it has authorised a collection of its wildest and most shameful errors in the book, Kill Duck Before Serving.

Contrast this tradition of the Times with the Indian media's arrogant notion of infallibility. Unlike their western counterparts, Indian newspapers rarely publish corrections of the numerous errors in their stories (grammatical, factual, ethics-wise). In the rare event when they publish the corrections, they are frequently hidden in the back pages of the paper. It also often emerges that the newspaper makes corrections only because it must print a retraction to avoid law suits. (My favourite column for "correction" in the Manipuri local daily, by the way, is the "Sengdokchaba" column).

A desultory study of the Indian newspapers will reveal that they leave a lot to be desired. Look at the Delhi edition of The Times of India--famous for its promotion of page 3 culture--, you will realise that the idea of an Ombudsman (nay, a nanny) is not a bad one after all. Many readers complain that Indian newspapers have lost their sense of social responsibility, and have become just another commercial product, like toothpaste. On any day, open a newspaper and look for errors, and you won't be disappointed. But one area where the newspapers are most at fault is the unacceptable ratio of ads to news content they publish. Sometimes readers wonder whether they are reading ad brochures or newspapers. It is time to tell them enough is enough. Through Ombudsman.