When the Jayson Blair fiasco came to a head at the New York Times in 2003, the paper went through a whole lot of rigamarole to prove to readers that it is accountable. Daniel Okrent was hired as the paper's first public editor or ombudsman, and began a regular column, taking reader complaints and acting as an independent reader's advocate. The paper had historically been opposed to the concept, but after the Siegal Committee, an in-house group put together to study the Times in the wake of the scandal, recommended taking the step, Okrent was hired. He's since written a tell-all type book about his work at the Times called Public Editor #1.

When Okrent left, veteran newspaperman Byron Calame took over, and while nowhere near as hard-hitting as his predecessor, he is still chipping away on behalf of readers. With his contract coming up in a few months, the Times is re-evaluating the need for the position. A few fairly innocuous remarks from Times executive editor Bill Keller were reported in the New York Observer, hinting at the possibility that after Calame's gone the position may be scrapped.

An e-mail from Keller was quoted that said "the creation of a public editor has helped the paper immensely in a period when the credibility of the media generally has been under assault." But he added that the need for a public editor has been diminished by other Times items like "Talk to the Newsroom," an online forum where various editors take questions. Definitely not the same thing as an full-time watchdog on alert.

While the Observer and subsequent story in the Huffington Post may be jumping the gun a little on Keller's statements, it makes you wonder about the validity of the position in the first place. Sure, they needed a public relations/credibility boost after Blair, but to scrap the whole thing so soon after the dust settles?