Don Sellar, the Toronto Star's ombudsman since 1992, is taking a buyout and moving on. However, he says the job will be filled again.

Here's an excerpt from his final column:

Please excuse these scattered thoughts and emotions in my 556th and final ombud's column, but I too have a couple of things to get off my chest before we part.

First, the newsroom and three publishers have treated the ombud very well throughout the piece.

(My current boss, publisher Michael Goldbloom has supported my independence, unflinchingly, and soon will announce a successor.)

Under the leadership of just-departed managing editor Mary Deanne Shears, the paper has endured if not always agreed with the criticisms and armchair chirping from this corner.

In truth, I've been given more than enough rope to hang myself on Saturdays in this space. I apologize to any in the newsroom who feel they suffered unduly from my errant keystrokes.

In fact, co-operation is essential if the unpleasant but necessary task of setting the record straight — hundreds of times a year in corrections, clarifications and apologies — is to succeed.

When former publisher Beland Honderich had the vision to set up the ombud's office in 1972, he understood the importance of openness and accountability in newspapering.

As someone who feels privileged to have heard from tens of thousands of readers over the years, it's enormously disappointing that no other daily in Canada sees to fit hire a news ombud.

A decade ago, eight of our 100-plus dailies had an ombud. But short-sighted bean-counters and thin-skinned editors abandoned this modest attempt at building credibility.

If a newspaper is going to challenge authority, or as Shears put it in a farewell speech, "speak truth to power," it has to be ready to take heat and give its critics fair treatment and decent space for rebuttal.

"Speak up for what you believe," the feisty former managing editor also advised her troops. "And remember — silence gives consent." Wise words.

In his second-last column, he tackled all the recent cries for a shield law:

Again, some excerpts:

Predictably, the Peters case has galvanized the journalism lobby into demanding "effective," U.S.-style shield laws to protect Canadian reporters.

The public seems less galvanized, and, frankly, I too have a few misgivings about that approach.

Journalists in Canada enjoy qualified privileges but traditionally haven't claimed rights not enjoyed by others. Why protect journalists when government or corporate whistleblowers don't enjoy ironclad protection for truth telling in the public interest?

The granting of special privileges to journalists could heighten public concern over lack of media accountability.

Would a shield law protect only journalists at mainstream media outlets? Or would it apply more broadly, to protect Internet bloggers, corner pamphleteers and student journalists?

In other words, what's a journalist? Do journalists really want lawmakers defining what a journalist is (and thereby regulating) the craft? ...

... It was interesting to see a Wednesday editorial in The New York Times about court developments "grim for those who cherish a free press." It outlined cases in which U.S. reporters have been put in jail or are at risk of same for protecting sources, even in states with shield laws.

The Times didn't mention shield laws. It asked judges to show "a healthy regard for robust journalism, government accountability and an informed citizenry." Nicely put.