AdAge pundit Simon Dumenco, argues Dan Okrent, lives too far inside the bubble to understand the needs of a newspaper-reading American public.

When the media beater published a column this week questioning the need for papers to continue keeping an ombudsman on staff, the industry cried foul. And stupid.

Argues Simon: Aren’t readers and bloggers sussing out newspapers’ errors and bias all by themselves?

Answers former New York Times ombuds Okrent: Um … no.

Writing in to Romenesko, Okrent won’t give us a Top Ten list of reasons why Dumenco is wrong – shame! – but does make the fair argument that only “if [sites like] Romenesko were a daily habit of the same millions who earnestly read the New York Times or the Washington Post or any other newspaper that has an ombud” could papers do away with a reader watchdog.

Until then, there’s Clark Hoyt, responding to readers’ concerns about there being too much sex in the Times, and this rabid ombudsman acting as the Dumenco watchdog.