“Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.
“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.
“From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a ‘top Democrat’ or a ‘Republican strategist.’”
Today the Times reports that an embarrassed media is responding to the story:
“The National Journal said over the weekend that it was banning the use of quotations that have been massaged or manipulated, joining a growing chorus of news organizations that are objecting to a practice that has become increasingly common in political journalism.
“The New York Times has said it encourages its reporters to push back against sources who demand quote approval and it is reviewing how its policies might address the issue. The Washington Examiner said last week that it, too, would not accept interviews granted under the condition of quote approval.”
Sorry, NYT, but encouraging push back is not the same thing as refusing to publish quotations that have been “massaged or manipulated”—which is a polite way of saying “may have been completely rewritten.” NYT, you are generally regarded as the most prestigious newspaper in the U.S. Shouldn’t you be ahead of the pack, instead of behind it?
