Political Reporters Give Campaigns Final Cut

[lcjjdnh]

If this story was about a school or team's SID or PR office demanding that reporters send in collected quotations to their office, and then the SID's office emails back with edited quotes they allow to be used, this board would be in an uproar.

Yep.

Or the Romney campaign.

Guess you didn't actually read the story before adding your incisive commentary, since the Romney campaign does it, too:

The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney's five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Withdrawn.

 

[Boom_70]

I can see the arguments on both sides of this debate:

How can you see the arguments for letting people change the things they've already said?

First, I could see doing this in, say, a explanatory science piece where you want to make sure you got the quote correct. Have people ever heard themselves talk? I have a lot of sympathy for people getting interviewed--even if they have their talking points ginned up in advance, it's often difficult to clearly and concisely express yourself orally. If cleaning up quotes allows for more accurate information more clearly conveyed to the reader, one could argue it's appropriate. That said, I'd probably lean toward this being far enough away from that sort of checking to make in inappropriate.

Second, I could see arguing for this in a utilitarian sense that it will lead to a greater amount of information reaching the public. It's not as though these are off-the-cuff remarks made in moments of weakness that reporters are allowing these advisers to look over out of sympathy--they're remarks made with the background knowledge these rules are in place. These advisers might not speak at all if not allowed these concessions. Could very well just be bullshirt to get these conditions, but I would have to assume these news organizations put up at least a little bit of fight and learned the politicos weren't backing down.

Third, there is arguably value in decreasing anonymity at the cost of these rules. If sources are more willing to go on the record because they know they can self-edit their remarks, journalists are decreasing one form of "deception"--for example, "person familiar with X's thinking" being person X himself--at the cost of another. It's a tradeoff.

I'm not saying it's right (although it might be). I'm just saying an argument can be made. Like most things, it's not as black and white as it might first appear.

Seriously ??

 

[da man]

I can see the arguments on both sides of this debate:

How can you see the arguments for letting people change the things they've already said?

First, I could see doing this in, say, a explanatory science piece where you want to make sure you got the quote correct. Have people ever heard themselves talk? I have a lot of sympathy for people getting interviewed--even if they have their talking points ginned up in advance, it's often difficult to clearly and concisely express yourself orally. If cleaning up quotes allows for more accurate information more clearly conveyed to the reader, one could argue it's appropriate. That said, I'd probably lean toward this being far enough away from that sort of checking to make in inappropriate.

Second, I could see arguing for this in a utilitarian sense that it will lead to a greater amount of information reaching the public. It's not as though these are off-the-cuff remarks made in moments of weakness that reporters are allowing these advisers to look over out of sympathy--they're remarks made with the background knowledge these rules are in place. These advisers might not speak at all if not allowed these concessions. Could very well just be bullshirt to get these conditions, but I would have to assume these news organizations put up at least a little bit of fight and learned the politicos weren't backing down.

Third, there is arguably value in decreasing anonymity at the cost of these rules. If sources are more willing to go on the record because they know they can self-edit their remarks, journalists are decreasing one form of "deception"--for example, "person familiar with X's thinking" being person X himself--at the cost of another. It's a tradeoff.

I'm not saying it's right (although it might be). I'm just saying an argument can be made. Like most things, it's not as black and white as it might first appear.

Seriously ??

Yeah, I'm sticking with BS.

 

[Bubbler]

When our rules are being taken advantage of, it's time for some new rules.

 

[JRoyal]

I just wonder how long this has gone on without a light being shined upon it. Odds are, it's been going on longer than we'd like to think.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

Reporters desperate to picks the brains of the president's top strategists, or anyone for matter, afraid of being quoted on a colorful metaphor used to be able to talk "off the record" or "on background." Isn't that the more ethical way to go about this for everyone?

They shouldn't be "unsaying" things they said or changing words after the fact. That part of it is nauseating.

 

[lcjjdnh]

Reporters desperate to picks the brains of the president's top strategists, or anyone for matter, afraid of being quoted on a colorful metaphor used to be able to talk "off the record" or "on background." Isn't that the more ethical way to go about this for everyone?

Well, as I said earlier, is it really? And should it be? Aren't readers in some ways better off knowing who really said these things--so they can directly evaluate motives of the sources*--than with general descriptions that often misdirect who is really behind a quote. For instance, "person with knowledge of X's thinking" can often be X himself, even though the quote makes it seem as though it's someone else.

* Many times it's obvious even without attribution, but full disclosure would still be better.

 

[lcjjdnh]

I can see the arguments on both sides of this debate:

How can you see the arguments for letting people change the things they've already said?

First, I could see doing this in, say, a explanatory science piece where you want to make sure you got the quote correct. Have people ever heard themselves talk? I have a lot of sympathy for people getting interviewed--even if they have their talking points ginned up in advance, it's often difficult to clearly and concisely express yourself orally. If cleaning up quotes allows for more accurate information more clearly conveyed to the reader, one could argue it's appropriate. That said, I'd probably lean toward this being far enough away from that sort of checking to make in inappropriate.

Second, I could see arguing for this in a utilitarian sense that it will lead to a greater amount of information reaching the public. It's not as though these are off-the-cuff remarks made in moments of weakness that reporters are allowing these advisers to look over out of sympathy--they're remarks made with the background knowledge these rules are in place. These advisers might not speak at all if not allowed these concessions. Could very well just be bullshirt to get these conditions, but I would have to assume these news organizations put up at least a little bit of fight and learned the politicos weren't backing down.

Third, there is arguably value in decreasing anonymity at the cost of these rules. If sources are more willing to go on the record because they know they can self-edit their remarks, journalists are decreasing one form of "deception"--for example, "person familiar with X's thinking" being person X himself--at the cost of another. It's a tradeoff.

I'm not saying it's right (although it might be). I'm just saying an argument can be made. Like most things, it's not as black and white as it might first appear.

Seriously ??

I would not have taken the time to draft three paragraphs making the argument even I didn't think one could make a good faith argument. Not saying I agree with it, but I think those things could at least plausibly be considered in making the decision whether this is appropriate.

 

[mcgovern72]

They're all in the same club.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

Reporters desperate to picks the brains of the president's top strategists, or anyone for matter, afraid of being quoted on a colorful metaphor used to be able to talk "off the record" or "on background." Isn't that the more ethical way to go about this for everyone?

Well, as I said earlier, is it really? And should it be? Aren't readers in some ways better off knowing who really said these things--so they can directly evaluate motives of the sources*--than with general descriptions that often misdirect who is really behind a quote. For instance, "person with knowledge of X's thinking" can often be X himself, even though the quote makes it seem as though it's someone else.

* Many times it's obvious even without attribution, but full disclosure would still be better.

To me its about trust. If someone trusts you not to quote them and trusts your word when you say its off or background, that means something. It means a heck of a lot more than involving a third party to neuter the quotes.

There's an element of trust within the campaign too....they don't trust their own people not to say dumb/controversial/ill-advised things?

Part of a reporter's job is speaking with multiple people so that you don't have one person's unattributed thoughts harkening back to that person. If you're making it obvious that the person familiar is that person, is that person going to come back to you with more info later? It would be tough to build a lot of trust relying on just one source like that.
What if Belichick wanted to examine the quotes from his OC before the media used them? No way that flies.

 

[buckweaver]

Man, this is bad. Really bad.

How in the world can credible newsgathering organizations actually justify this practice?

Would like to hear more from anyone at these outlets besides Baquet's "Hey, maybe we should push back more."

Incredibly damaging to the reputation of all journalists.