The job of a readers' representative is to act as a "go-between". He or she attempts to resolve conflicts between the newspaper and its readers. These conflicts can be about accuracy, fairness, balance and taste in the newspaper's coverage. The readers' representative receives, investigates and replies to complaints and requests for corrections.

The first readers' representative was appointed to the Asahi Shimbun in Tokyo in 1922; the first in the US was appointed in 1967 to the Courier-Journal and Louisville Times in Kentucky.

The concept was introduced to Ireland in 1988, in a report written by Professor Kevin Boyle and Marie McGonagle, which had been commissioned by the National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI). They investigated whether the law on defamation in this State maximised press freedom while at the same time giving satisfactory remedies to aggrieved citizens who claimed that the press has injured them. The subsequent report concluded that it does not.

The authors suggested reforms in the law and also recommended that newspapers should play their part. They argued that, even in the interests of their own professional standards, newspapers should set up procedures whereby complaints could be dealt with swiftly and efficiently.

For a newspaper to maintain trust, readers must be happy that what they read is honest and accurate and that both sides of a story have been given - or, at the very least, both sides have been sought.

However, journalists on daily newspapers work under enormous pressure. In The Irish Times, more than half a million words are written, processed and printed within a few hours every day. Journalists are human and therefore, like the rest of us, they make mistakes. How then can a newspaper maintain credibility? How can it keep the respect and loyalty of its readers? The first thing a newspaper must do, if it gets something wrong, is to admit it and then it must do all it can to put it right. Newspapers insist on their right to criticise the performance of governments, institutions and organisations. It is only reasonable to require that newspapers themselves be open to scrutiny, that what they demand from others, they must also provide themselves. In short, like other institutions in a democracy, newspapers need to be accountable to the public.

In their report, Boyle and McGonagle discussed systems that would facilitate a process of openness and accountability and at the same time help to reduce the enormous costs of libel cases. They looked at the benefits of a having a press council - as in Britain. However, because of the difference between the way the press operates here and there, they looked instead at other options. These included a readers' representative system, as operates in some newspapers in the US and Europe.

The idea behind the system is to provide a clearly identifiable individual within the newspaper whose task it is to act on behalf of readers, seeking corrections and clarifications where necessary.

The Irish Times agreed that it needed to be in communication with its readers and felt that a readers' representative would enable it to respond to its readers' concerns. To reflect its full commitment to the system, a senior managing editor, Dr David Nowlan, was appointed to be its first readers' representative in 1989. (David retires this week and writes elsewhere on this page about his time dealing with readers' complaints.)

In 1995, Boyle and McGonagle undertook a follow-up investigation to see how the system of self-regulation had operated in the interim. Their second report concluded that, when it is operated properly, the readers' representative's service was valuable to both reader and newspaper.

The system gives the reader easy and direct access to the newspaper to voice all manner of views and complaints with the prospect of personal, prompt and effective remedy. For the newspaper, there is the advantage of being able to channel readers' communications through one office. It also gives us the opportunity to know about and therefore put right any inaccuracies or mistakes. Also in 1995, the Government set up a Commission on the Newspaper Industry to examine areas such as ownership, diversity, competitiveness, the balance between privacy and press freedom and the proper role of the State in relation to such matters.

Among a range of recommendations made by the commission were changes in the law of defamation and the establishment of an ombudsman for the newspaper industry. The ombudsman would investigate complaints involving any possible question of defamation, provided the complaint had first been made to the newspaper and had not been dealt with to the complainant's satisfaction.

The commission viewed the establishment of an ombudsman as another relatively simple and feasible step between complaining of a grievance and taking a legal case under defamation law, where there could be huge expense, long delays and complications, without any certainty of a result.

However, it hasn't happened: the industry has made no move to establish the post because it considers that for it to work effectively, the defamation laws would have to be reformed; and despite criticism from many quarters, including the Law Reform Commission, the Government has not yet instigated any changes in the area of media law.

In the meantime, The Irish Times will continue to provide access for its readers, ensuring that communication is in two directions - outward and inward.