Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt and Andy Alexander, the newspaper's ombudsman, apparently have different understandings of the ombudsman's role at the Post.

Hiatt recently told me that he would have no problem if Alexander wanted to weigh in on issues that arise in the editorial pages -- noting two previous incidents when the ombudsman did just that. “My understanding is that it is his call,” Hiatt said. “Generally, the view of ombudsmen has been how I run my operation is legitimate for them to look at.”

But Alexander disagreed, noting: “It is not the job as defined in The Washington Post.”

The Washington Post has one of the most influential and hard-line editorial pages in the business. The Post -- and Hiatt himself -- wield influence on some of the nation's most powerful people.

Among its most noticeable positions has been a consistently hawkish stance on many Iraq issues dating back to the beginning of the 2003 invasion of that country. Its editorials are among the most read in the nation.

So it is surprising to find that it is also one of the few editorial pages that is not overseen by its ombudsman.

Alexander, who has been the Post's ombudsman for the past year and will remain through early 2011, said his job is not to critique the editorial pages, making him one of the few I have found that does not.

“My job is ombudsman for news content,” said Alexander, a former Washington bureau chief for Cox Newspapers and longtime D.C. journalist. “That is the job.”

During his first year on the job, Alexander said, he did write columns on two editorial page issues, but he said these instances were unusual. One was a simple explanation of the process for letters to the editor, while the other dealt with facts in a George Will column. “I was drawn into those, but it is not my job to be part of that.”

A call to Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth's office was not returned.

Ombudsmen and reader representatives at other papers, whose ranks have shrunk dramatically in recent years, said they have oversight of the editorial pages if needed. Most said they do not take on the opinions of the newspaper, but will look at accuracy, process, and other journalistic elements.

“I have dealt quite a bit with op-ed material,” said Clark Hoyt, The New York Times' public editor since 2007. “With facts or an argument that is asserting something false. I can weigh in on it. I also weigh in on matters of tone and civility. I have had issues with op-ed material before.”

Hoyt said he does not take on which side the paper is on in an editorial, but will look at how the issues are handled: “I think it is an opportunity to explain what an op-ed page is all about.”

Other ombudsmen agreed.

“My responsibilities include the printed newspaper, the online newspaper and the editorial pages,” said Shawn McIntosh, public editor at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution since April 2009. “In our market, our readers are very concerned about the editorial mix. I don't think it would make sense for a reader advocate here not to provide oversight on that.”

Brent Jones, reader editor for USA Today since 2000, said, “I am the standards editor, and as far as best practices, that applies to the editorial page, too.”

He later added, “There are things that crop up on a daily basis and I make observations about anything I see.”

At the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, reader advocate Debbie Kornmiller said she has addressed numerous issues with the editorial page.

“We run corrections on editorials and on editorial cartoons, even spelling,” she said. “But I don't get into the opinions, per se. I think facts are facts, so why draw an artificial barrier? Can I talk about opinion? No. But I can talk about the frequency of a column, why Garrison Keillor did not run this week.”

For Derek Donovan, reader's representative at the Kansas City Star, the same rules apply: “That is why the role is here, to have purview over the facts. I am here for matters of fairness and accuracy.”