In a three-ring circus of journalistic jackassery, former NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin writes in Salon about the decline of his profession: Whereas five years ago 60 news outlets employed ombudsmen, now only 45 do so. Stop the presses as I sound the klaxons of alarm.

In what is becoming an increasingly familiar theme, Dvorkin starts off by attributing bad faith to his critics and acknowledging a possible “perception” of bias without much acknowledging real faults. Writing about listeners’ reaction to NPR coverage of the Second Intifada, Dvorkin opines:

I think the shift was due to two factors: 1) the Patriot Act appeared to silence a lot of pro-Palestinian opinion. I suddenly stopped hearing from people with Middle Eastern names. 2) The Passover bombing marked the first time in the Intifada that Israelis were killed in a specifically Jewish (as opposed to Israeli) circumstance. For many NPR listeners, that raised the existential threat of anti-Semitism and many pro-Israel and Jewish listeners responded passionately. Some of that passion was stoked by one particular lobby group, known as CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America). This group, based in Cambridge, Mass., was particularly effective in generating real anger around NPR’s reporting. Its criticisms were occasionally right, but only occasionally.
On many occasions, I would ask an irate caller if he or she had heard the story in question. I would say that in 90 percent of cases, the answer was no. They were calling me because CAMERA had told them to.
As a consequence of its campaign against NPR, CAMERA acted as the enabler for some seriously disturbed people.

A few things leap to mind: The first is Dvorkin’s reliance upon the tired claim that the Patriot Act is in any way related to quashing dissent at home. Of course he uses the weasly “appeared to silence,” but the point is the same. Having actually read the Patriot Act, I know that I immediately stopped calling to complain to ombudsmen when I read …

SEC. 813. INCLUSION OF ACTS OF TERRORISM AS RACKETEERINGACTIVITY.Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—(1) by striking ‘‘or (F)’’ and inserting ‘‘(F)’’; and (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following:‘‘, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B)’’.

… and other similar Patriot Act provisions. Maybe it’s just my primal fear of semicolons; maybe not. Either way, if the Patriot Act has made anybody cautious about criticizing the U.S. government, Israel, NPR, or mom’s Sunday ham, that is almost certainly because of inaccurate and hysterical media coverage of said legislation–and some of that reporting comes from NPR. I am no great fan of the Patriot Act, but it’s hardly an Orwellian’s camel’s nose under the tent of our civil liberties, to deploy an aggressively ugly metaphor.

But more important, notice what he writes about CAMERA: “Its criticisms were occasionally right, but only occasionally.” And then he goes on to blame them for “enabling” nasty callers. Given that Dvorkin is trying to show that ombudsmen (and “ombudswomen,” as he writes in the excruciatingly PC fashion) play a vital role in correcting mistakes and journalistic abuses, might he not have let us know which “occasionally right” criticisms CAMERA made? Instead, he smears his critics with the antisocial antics of crank-callers with no demonstrable link to the organization, as a bonus using the old Stalinist tactic of declaring one’s opponents mentally ill (“disturbed”).

The silly thing is that Dvorkin seems surprised by mean telephone calls. I spent five years as the editor of a little community newspaper in the Philadelphia suburbs–on the Main Line, a true hotbed of rest–and I probably received a threat to my life or person about once a month. Our 12,000 or so readers were reacting to school-board stories and crime reports. NPR covers hot-button global issues for a much larger audience, and Dvorkin thinks angry or threatening callers are even notable? (Note to ombudsmen and editors: If you’re exercising your First Amendment rights professionally, you might want to exercise your Second Amendment rights, too. Worked for me.)

The other maddening thing is his claim that about 90 percent of the allegedly CAMERA-inspired callers ‘fessed up to not having heard the story. As anybody who has ever dealt with an organized telephone or letter campaign knows, coached callers–”seminar callers,” as Rush Limbaugh calls them–will almost never admit to not having heard or read a story. I do not think that it is probably true that 90 percent of the angry callers hadn’t heard the story and admitted not having heard the story.

And if you really want to know what ails American journalism, check out this bit from Dvorkin:

I’m hardly unbiased in this matter. I was on the executive board of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) for five years and its president in 2004 and 2005.

An Organization of News Ombudsman (Oh, no!) with an “executive board”? (Surprised he didn’t capitalize that, Executive Board.) Maybe the problem with the establishment media is that too many reporters and editors are spending their time on executive boards of ombudsmen’s lunch clubs, along with diversity committees, Newspapers In Education task forces, and the like, rather than reporting and editing the news.