The subject of his first missive as the Worldwide Leader's Watchdog was ostensibly ("1: in an ostensible manner") about ESPN's foot dragging on the Ben Roethlisberger sexual assault story. And he got there eventually. But first a 1,600-word discourse on the nature of service journalism and why people love to complain.

At this point, you have no need to worry about Ohlmeyer's independence from the ESPN corporate structure since it's obvious that no editor touched this thing. (Although it was published at 5:30 p.m. on a Tuesday night, just before the Brett Favre news conference. Not exactly primetime placement.) He may soon be giving Simmons a run for the ink barrel money. Ohlmeyer then takes another 1,800 words or so to explain what the hell happened, why people are upset—including reprinting several of the actual complaints—and giving one of the suits a chance to explain themselves. The answers aren't any more convincing than they were before.

(The crux of their argument for not reporting the story continues to be that Roethlisberger had not publicly addressed it himself, but most people found out about the case because of his own lawyer. From a news perspective, I don't see much difference.)

Finally, Ohlmeyer gets to the reason he's here—delivering his own experienced, unbiased judgment as to what ESPN probably should have done. (Yes, it's Monday Morning Quarterbacking, but that's the job.) I'll just reprint the meat of his response since he pretty much nailed it:

Even if ESPN judged that it should not report the Roethlisberger suit, not acknowledging a sports story that's blanketing the airways requires an explanation to your viewers, listeners and readers. And in today's world they are owed that explanation right away — to do otherwise is just plain irresponsible. It forces your audience to ask why the story was omitted. It forces them to manufacture a motive. And it ultimately forces them to question your credibility.

It appears that in an attempt to tamp down media criticism, ESPN issued a statement to inquiring news organizations that had questioned its lack of acknowledgment of this story. That doesn't cut it. In a situation like this you need to be proactive, not reactive. If ESPN felt it needed to explain its rationale to the New York Times or the Washington Post, then there is no excuse for not giving the same explanation DIRECTLY to its audience. [Emphasis added]

Bingo. ESPN should have anticipated that their viewers would expect a reaction, and even if they didn't anticipate it, they still sat on the story long past the point when it was proper to do so, and after they were forced to make ridiculous statements explaining their non-statements. Ohlmeyer took a long, circuitous route to get there, but he agrees with me so he is a genius.

Don Ohlmeyer: New ombudsman analyzes ESPN's handling of the Ben Roethlisberger story [ESPN]

To be an ombudsman, after all, is to be the insider and outsider, the scolding wrist-slapper who will never please everyone, the watcher of the watchmen. The job is challenging, intellectually and practically, and it's far from glamorous, but let's not mince words and sympathize too much. As Daniel Okrent, the New York Times' first public editor, wrote in his farewell column: "I wish I hadn't made so much noise, in print and in various interviews, about how hard this job was. Dexter Filkins, in Baghdad, has a hard job; Steven Erlanger, in Jerusalem, has a hard job. By any reasonable standard, public editor is a walk in the park." ESPN doesn't have bureaus in Baghdad or Jerusalem, but the metric holds. And to Ohlmeyer's credit, he wasn't one to bemoan his new gig in his first interview with SI's Richard Deitsch. His job is difficult, true. But there are ways to not only alleviate the burden, but excel as the ESPN ombudsman.

One is tracking the zeitgeist of the sports blogosphere, a little ditty much-revered ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber picked up early in her tenure. Another is to imbibe ESPN in all forms — television, radio, online, and even print — as devotedly as the legions of its crazed consumers. It's an obsession Ohlmeyer's new position will seemingly force him to adopt. There's a difference between being an above-average consumer of ESPN and being someone who knows the ins-and-outs well enough to support an informed opinion. Sometimes, Ohlmeyer will criticize ESPN. Other times, he will buttress the network's practices. The best public editors do both, when necessary. To do so, though, one needs proper perspective, and that comes, at least in part, from fully absorbing and fully understanding all the Worldwide Leader's tentacles.

SI.com: Let's break down how much of ESPN platforms you are reading or watching today. How much of its television programming do you watch?

Ohlmeyer: I am a regular consumer of live event programming on ESPN. I would say I am an above-average consumer. In my normal life, I would watch SportsCenter three or four times a week.

SI.com: How much of ESPN.com do you read?

Ohlmeyer: The dot-com I have not been a big consumer of, although I have used it to seek out information.

SI.com: ESPN the Magazine?

Ohlmeyer: I would classify it as I read the articles occasionally

SI.com: ESPN Radio?

Ohlmeyer: We have it here in Los Angeles and it was one of the things I check out when I get in the car driving. It is one of three or four choices that I have set on the buttons.

Compare that, in turn, with the way Schreiber described her consumption habits.

Q: What is the process for deciding what to write your column about? Are you constantly watching ESPN and reading every columns, gauging emails

Yes, all of the above. It's impossible for one person and her DVR to consume all that ESPN puts out, but I worked out a daily routine of watching, for starts, a SportsCenter, Outside the Lines and PTI to keep on top of basic news, issues, and grist of day's opinion mill. Also reading selected columns and news stories, especially anything marked Report or Source. Also checking mailbag to see what was on fans' minds. Then, depending on topics I was considering for the column, I would add other shows to my viewing - might be a couple weeks of Baseball Tonight, a season of MNF, a run of E:60's or those endless (may they RIP) SportsCenter specials. I always had way more material and notes and solicited information than I could use. Often I would have a column written in my head, then switch topics to address some furor that arose in the mailbag.

It's not fair to directly contrast those two points of view. The interview with Schreiber came after her term; Ohlmeyer's doesn't start for a few weeks, and right now, he's still Googling phrases like "I Love ESPN" and "I Hate ESPN."

So while this isn't news to anyone, Ohlmeyer must continue to learn by better familiarizing himself with ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com, with Page 2 and Page 3 and Page 8, with ESPN Insider and ESPN Chicago, with the forthcoming ESPN Dallas and ESPN New York and ESPN Los Angeles, with all of ESPN's blog networks and local radio stations, with Bill Simmons and Rick Reilly and Chris Berman and Stuart Scott, with SportsNation and Blog Buzz and and PTI and Around the Horn and Outside The Lines and 30 For 30 and Homecoming, and, you know, everything else. Like SportsCenter.

The Takeaway with Don Ohlmeyer [SI.com]
An interview with ESPN ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber [The Big Lead]
13 Things I Meant To Write But Never Did [New York Times]
The Ombudsman Puzzle [American Journalism Review]
EARLIER: ESPN Ombudsperson Of Significant Interest: Don Ohlmeyer

Ohlmeyer's resume is a dramatic shift from prior ombudspeople (both Schreiber and George Solomon were newspaper disciples) but it could possibly be a better fit for the position if ESPN covets criticism for all of its media platforms, especially its television programming. This move also further solidifies ESPN's takeover of the sports media universe, as they'll have one of the industry's more lionized visionaries on staff to publicly consult criticize them into becoming even more World Wide Leadery.

ESPN's comment about Ohlmeyer: "We will announce our new ombudsman when the process is finalized."

Pshaw. The potential downside of this is that it will probably abandon all hopes of Norm Macdonald ever hosting the ESPYs again: Upside? I can't wait to see Ohlmeyer's take on Blog Buzz.