1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Political Reporters Give Campaigns Final Cut

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by lcjjdnh, Jul 16, 2012.

  1. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

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

     
  2. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Withdrawn.
     
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Seriously ??
     
  4. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I'm sticking with BS.
     
  5. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

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

    JRoyal Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  7. JimmyHoward33

    JimmyHoward33 Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  8. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  9. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  10. mcgovern72

    mcgovern72 Member

    They're all in the same club.
     
  11. JimmyHoward33

    JimmyHoward33 Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  12. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    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.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page