Thu Sep 20, 2012, 04:45 PM

In New Policy, The Times Forbids After-the-Fact ‘Quote Approval’

Source: NY Times

The New York Times is drawing “a clear line” against the practice of news sources being allowed to approve quotations in stories after the fact.

The practice, known as quote approval, “puts so much control over the content of journalism in the wrong place,” the executive editor Jill Abramson told me in an interview. “We need a tighter policy.”

Times editors have been working on the policy for months, she noted — ever since a July story by Jeremy Peters revealed the practice as a widespread one that included many reporters.

A memorandum on Thursday says that “demands for after-the-fact quote approval by sources and their press aides have gone too far.”

Read more: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/in-new-policy-the-times-forbids-after-the-fact-quote-approval/?hp

9 replies, 1719 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

9 replies	Author	Time	Post
In New Policy, The Times Forbids After-the-Fact ‘Quote Approval’ (Original post)	SecularMotion	Sep 2012	OP
I hate to say it, but I've encountered this not just frequently, but COMMONLY, over the years.	MADem	Sep 2012	#1
And that's the root of this issue: fairness and honesty	mountain grammy	Sep 2012	#2
I will admit, though, the first time I ever had to deal with	MADem	Sep 2012	#4
At first, when I read this post, my first thought was	mountain grammy	Sep 2012	#6
I was surprised that the reporters agreed to it so readily, but plenty of them did.	MADem	Sep 2012	#7
I call this Russertism	librechik	Sep 2012	#3
Like OMFG you're smart, Jill.	GeorgeGist	Sep 2012	#5
What about CIA pre-approval?	Octafish	Sep 2012	#8
Another version of this, which may become more common bc of this policy, is to	KurtNYC	Sep 2012	#9

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 04:56 PM

MADem (85,867 posts)

1. I hate to say it, but I've encountered this not just frequently, but COMMONLY, over the years.

A military or defense issues reporter was hard put to get an interview with anyone worth anything without agreeing to this ahead of time....

In fairness, though, I will say that the purpose wasn't to change content, but to ensure clarity and prevent the "principal" from looking like an uneducated hack or a crude individual.

Reply to this post

Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 05:11 PM

mountain grammy (1,571 posts)

2. And that's the root of this issue: fairness and honesty

for both the interviewee and the interviewer.

Reply to this post

Response to mountain grammy (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 05:26 PM

MADem (85,867 posts)

4. I will admit, though, the first time I ever had to deal with

a draft forwarded by a military reporter for "review," I was shocked. I had no idea that the principal got that 2nd bite of the apple--thing is, if the reporters wanted access, that's how it was done.

Reply to this post

Response to MADem (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 11:59 PM

mountain grammy (1,571 posts)

6. At first, when I read this post, my first thought was

duhhh. Isn't this Journalism 101? Your response made me see this from another point of view.

Reply to this post

Response to mountain grammy (Reply #6)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 07:40 AM

MADem (85,867 posts)

7. I was surprised that the reporters agreed to it so readily, but plenty of them did.

I used to work for some fairly well-known names whose opinions were sought, and like I said, I was shocked the first time I ever saw this go down. After the first few times, though, I copped to how the game was played. I didn't think it was terribly fair, though, and I was pretty damn sure that not everyone got the same treatment. If you were "somebody" in government, and a good source, you got that benefit--if you were just a loudmouth schmuck, you took your chances!

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 05:14 PM

librechik (24,981 posts)

3. I call this Russertism

Last edited Thu Sep 20, 2012, 05:16 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Lap dog Russert would never ask a question he wasn't allowed to by the interview subject (unless it was a Dem he wanted to shame and destroy. Then the bulldog came out!

from Froomkin, last year:

" When then-vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby called Russert on July 10, 2003, to complain that his name was being unfairly bandied about by MSNBC host Chris Matthews, Russert apparently asked him nothing.

And get this: According to Russert's testimony yesterday at Libby's trial, when any senior government official calls him, they are presumptively off the record.

That's not reporting, that's enabling."

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/weiner-pix-story-exposes-larger-media-n

much more at link

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 05:50 PM

GeorgeGist (9,504 posts)

5. Like OMFG you're smart, Jill.

What J school did you never attend?

Harvard does produce some high-profile flunkies.

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 09:02 AM

Octafish (33,393 posts)

8. What about CIA pre-approval?

Wanna know why Media ignore war criminals? CIA calls the shots.

Has that policy changed, Ms. Abramson?

Reply to this post

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Sep 21, 2012, 03:55 PM

KurtNYC (12,054 posts)

9. Another version of this, which may become more common bc of this policy, is to

respond to requests for comment or interview with a short written quote that can't be misconstrued or edited down.

Reply to this post

Latest Breaking News (Forum)