ESPN's newest watchdogs
The reason is it is called the Poynter Review system is we tried not to be ombudsman, and a big difference is what you just said: Ombudsman typically exchange with the audience, including in the mail. We don't plan to engage that. It's not our plan to be the typical ombudsman.
But I think this is important: The measure of success for us is not how much they adapt to what we say. The measure of success is engaging the conversation both with them and the larger public. They are accountable to the degree they decide to follow the suggestions we say and I believe they will. I don' think it's a check-off of how many things we suggest they do. I think the measure is a good and useful conversation, both for that organization and the greater public.
Some things they'll have good intentions but they will never get around to doing. The ultimate goal is to impact an organization in a complete and thorough way but you can come short of that goal and still do a really good job. I think they are genuine about their interest in Poynter doing this work because they are having it done publicly. A lot of people hire us privately to do this type of review. But they are doing this publicly. So why would you set yourself up if you were not at least open to the possibility?