"Quote approval" -- Where's the outrage?

Pete Wevurski · Jul 21, 2012

I'm stunned not to have heard much about this abominable practice before now:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/opinion/rather-quote-approval-reporting/index.html

I'm having a difficult time envisioning ANY scenario that justifies a reporter making such a deal.

imjustagirl · Jul 21, 2012

There's some outrage here, but others saying they get it.

For the record: I don't get it.

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/91325/

Stitch · Jul 21, 2012

Poltical reporters are worse than sports reporters in their white-glove treatment of sources.

Pete Wevurski · Jul 21, 2012

Sorry for the DB!

DanOregon · Jul 22, 2012

One thing that I think should be an absolute if a news org does print approved quotes is that the process is made clear to the reader.

Riptide · Jul 22, 2012

I am shocked -- SHOCKED!!!

Also, I am outraged. Politicians answer to the people, etc.

buckweaver · Jul 22, 2012

Pete Wevurski said:

I'm having a difficult time envisioning ANY scenario that justifies a reporter making such a deal.
Click to expand...

I find it extremely sad that the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is pretty much the only major outlet or journalism organization that has come out to condemn this practice.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/jul/18/goodbye-journalism/

Poynter has a story about AP not allowing quote approval, with quotes from AP spokesperson Paul Colford. But nothing from anyone at Poynter saying this is a bad idea.

SPJ has nothing except a "what do you think?" post on its site. Nothing at all from APME/APSE (which may or may not be covered by the previously mentioned AP statement.)

If there ARE other journalism orgs who have taken a public stand against this crap, I hope someone else can prove me wrong by posting links. Because I'm not seeing it.

YankeeFan · Jul 24, 2012

No live tweeting:

Vice President Joe Biden will take questions from reporters on a White House press call today, and as has been the case in the past, the on-the-record conversation will be embargoed until the end of the call.

The curious caveat -- who would write an article during the middle of the call? -- is a product of the post-Twitter presidential campaign, barring reporters from the beloved habit of tweeting remarks in real-time.

But it begs the question: If it's going to be in an article 20 minutes later, why can't it be on Twitter right now?

From White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest, via email: "The embargo will allow journalists to hear the entirety of the Vice President’s remarks and get the benefit of having their questions answered -- before trying to condense a 30-minute conference call about a 20-page NEC report into a 140 characters."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/the-vps-remarks-will-not-be-tweeted-129919.html#.UA7I64994UA.twitter
Click to expand...

I can understand not wanting reporters to be tapping on their cell phones during a WH press conference. But, a conference call?

At what point is the press going to tell these guys (all of them) to go fuck themselves. They're as bad as the Hollywood press in trading good coverage in return for access.

And, the shame of it is, politicians need the press.

Sports teams and leagues have their own media, websites, writers, and even networks. They're in a position to tell the press to go fuck themselves -- especially when so many fans juts want "happy news" about their favorite teams.

Politicians need free media. There's no reason to live by their rules. All it takes is the press sticking together.

wisportswriter · Jul 24, 2012

Stitch said:

Poltical reporters are worse than sports reporters in their white-glove treatment of sources.
Click to expand...

As a current former and former latter, I'm doubly hurt.
I have sources who could confirm as much, but I can't reveal them. ;-)

I have already run into this once, halfway at least. A presidential campaign staffer asked to see in context the quote I was going to use in a story. A quote from said staffer, no less. Not even a candidate. Anyway, I begrudgingly complied - which in hindsight I don't feel altogether proud of - and everything was hunky dory. (It was a fairly soft piece anyway. I'm surprised they even asked.)
I will say with certainty that had the staffer asked to alter or eliminate the quote, I would have respectfully declined. I'm still new and naive enough to this side of the business that I don't care about pissing off such sources. And I am not going down that road. You want to be protective of your comments, think of that before you open your mouth. I can handle sources being less than forthcoming. I'm used to that. I'm not going to start editing my copy for them.

YankeeFan · Jul 24, 2012

What the fuck?

In February, Daniel de Vise, a reporter for the Washington Post, arrived at the University of Texas at Austin campus to work on a story about a controversial standardized test sweeping the nation’s colleges and universities. The test purports to determine how much students have learned in college, part of a movement to bring No Child Left Behind-style accountability testing to higher education. University officials were nervous about what the story would say about the politically sensitive topic. Before he landed in Austin, de Vise emailed UT’s director of communications to reassure him that the article was “NOT meant to be any sort of hit piece, more of a thought-provoker.”

De Vise’s visit was fairly routine journalism. He toured campus, visited with students and interviewed administrators. But when de Vise returned to Washington, D.C., he employed some unusual, perhaps even unethical, techniques.

Before publication, de Vise shared at least two complete drafts of his article with UT’s press officers and allowed them to suggest critical edits, some of which ended up in the published story, according to emails obtained by The Texas Observer through a public information request.

Journalists have traditionally been taught never to share entire drafts with sources to avoid undue influence. But in preparing his 1,300-word story—which ran on the Post’s front page on March 14 under the headline "Trying to assess learning gives colleges their own anxiety”—de Vise flouted journalistic convention and allowed UT officials to suggest substantive changes to a major news story about a politically charged topic.

"Everything here is negotiable," de Vise wrote to Tara Doolittle, director of media outreach at UT-Austin on March 5. "Help me out by not circulating this material very far and by stressing that it is an unpublished draft. If you or anyone at the university has any concerns about it, I implore you to direct them to me. I'm one of a very few reporters here who send drafts to sources!"

http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/washington-post-reporter-allows-college-officials-to-alter-story-on-controversial-test
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

"Quote approval" -- Where's the outrage?

Pete Wevurski Member

imjustagirl Active Member

Stitch Active Member

Pete Wevurski Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

Riptide Well-Known Member

buckweaver Active Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

wisportswriter Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

"Quote approval" -- Where's the outrage?

Pete Wevurski Member

imjustagirl Active Member

Stitch Active Member

Pete Wevurski Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

Riptide Well-Known Member

buckweaver Active Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

wisportswriter Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches