‘Quote approval’ turns press from watchdog to lapdog

I saw the original story about this in the New York Times a couple of days ago and was outraged. This means essentially that we cannot trust any quote in an article about administration officials or major politicians. It also means that there will inevitably be a trickle down effect. Within a couple of years, local selectmen will be demanding quote approval from the local weekly newspaper. The media really have become a bunch of lapdogs.

I first heard about this controversy on the Poynter Institute website, and I was surprised that prestigious publications would even admit to such a policy. There is nothing wrong with calling an interview subject up and clarifying something in a story, but allowing them to have veto power over a quote is simply wrong. I've never ran into it during my lengthy career in the newspaper business and certainly don't think it's common practice in Maine.

One public official I knew pretty well routinely made some off-the-wall remarks at selectmen's meetings, and joked "Now, don't you quote me on that." I always responded: "Anything you say in a public forum is fair game." After awhile, he was smart enough to think before he spoke.

Boy, where to start on this one... okay, maybe with a few key bullets:

• It's wrong
• It's nothing new
• It's arguably more common now

I would submit, however, that in many cases this is more of a symptom than the disease itself. Mike Lange makes an excellent point with his anecdote about the local official. But many interviews are not carried out in a public setting.

While this is certainly an area in which the powerful and well-connected can and do manipulate the media in a grossly unethical manner, the fact is that the news media has - at least in my opinion - become considerably more error-prone due to its financial challenges. Newsroom staffs are considerably smaller in raw numbers; lots of institutional memory (and higher pay grades) walked out the door with either a buyout package or a pink slip. This has left newsrooms dependent upon a higher percentage of inexperienced reporters and fewer (and arguably less-skilled) editors.

Quote approval, as distasteful as the concept is, can thus be seen as a defensive mechanism by sources justifiably concerned that their remarks were taken out of context.

There are plenty of documented examples of gross incompetence in the US media today. Some, but certainly not all, of recent media screwups can be attributed to bias. Others are flat-out mistakes. Some might start down the chain with bias but get aired due to lax oversight; the infamous edit of George Zimmerman's 911 call is likely an example of that. Given all of this, it's unfortunate but not exactly surprising that sources would want a read-back.

Solutions? It would be hoped that news organizations will awaken to the fact that significant errors in reporting are undermining their credibility. Meantime, anyone who speaks with the media should be trained in how to interact with it. Many times, people who feel they were misquoted actually weren't misquoted at all - they simply made errors in the message they delivered, and the way they delivered it. When possible sources for news stories understand how the media really works and how to interact with it, they tend to get better results.

The only reason that President Obama's complaints that he was "quoted out of context" on the "you didn't build it" speech have any credibility at all (and let me be clear the full statement shows he wasn't misquoted) is that the press already has a long record of doing that to others, from the Zimmerman tape to the Bush 41 "grocery scanner" incident to Dan Quayle being given a note by a teacher with "potatoe" misspelled on it. (OK, Quayle should have known it was wrong. Obama should have known there were only 50 states, too....) But complaints about coverage are not all the fault of the complainer. If you are the one who needs "special training" to speak to someone whose job it is to quote you accurately in order to be quoted accurately, the fault is not in the one being interviewed.

If you are the one who needs "special training" to speak to someone whose job it is to quote you accurately in order to be quoted accurately, the fault is not in the one being interviewed.

MIke, I'm thrilled that a journalist of your experience and credibility is responding. Insofar as it is a journalist's responsibility to accurately quote a source, I'm in complete agreement with your point. My point is that sources often don't understand the interview process and make significant errors in the way they state their positions.

Journalists always go for the short, punchy, most colorful quote, not the long, nuanced, detailed explanation (especially true in television, but not uncommon in print/online). If we look, for example, at current AP style, we see that for all intents and purposes quotes are capped at around 20 - 25 words, +/-. That's the length of an AP paragraph. So when a source is engaged in that detailed explanation, the reporter will often extract that 20-25 words from the longer soliloquy.

One would hope that the other key points in the longer statement will be reflected in body copy, but this obviously doesn't always happen. Often, the issues are mechanical - the story gets cut for space or time - but the net result is the same: the unskilled source will see his comment stripped of the surrounding detail. He/she then views him/herself as "misquoted," even though the reporter may have in fact quoted that individual with complete accuracy.

The training I mention is all about helping people become more quotable in order to get their positions conveyed simply, efficiently and clearly as possible.

If you are the one who needs "special training" to speak to someone whose job it is to quote you accurately in order to be quoted accurately, the fault is not in the one being interviewed.

Misquoting is old and commonplace. I also think the the "journolists" coming into the profession are not as well-training as those of a generation past. Unless you've sat through a hundred boring council and planning board meetings, I don't think you should be able to call yourself a reporter.

The few times I've been interviewed, I quickly learned to ask the person who is interviewing me to read back what they've written down. That's all I can do. After that all I hope is that they'll at least get my name right.

I get the point you all are making, and I am thoroughly familiar with the short quote phenomenon (Gov. LePage, call your press secretary. No, don't call him that...) But still it is the reporter's job to be fair and accurate and provide necessary context where it aids understanding. The rule I was taught was that all the important questions a reader might have about the topic you were covering should be answered, and if you didn't have an answer, tell the reader why (Councilor Jones could not be reached for comment due to his still being involved in the booking process, etc....) All the other things are just excuses for doing a bad job. Now tell me lots of reporters are doing bad jobs, and I will keep my mouth shut.

I get the point you all are making, and I am thoroughly familiar with the short quote phenomenon (Gov. LePage, call your press secretary. No, don't call him that...)

Thanks for the coffee that just came out my nose. ;->

Besides being funny, your example of Governor LePage is a perfect example; LePage actually speaks bluntly and simply, and in tight enough packets that reporters could in fact quote him in more detail and still meet space/time guidelines. But instead of doing so, they simply extract the five to seven most inflammatory words.

And yes, Mike, I think some reporters are doing a bad job. But I reserve my real contempt for editors who either don't hold those reporters to the same standards as you were trained to uphold, or who cut statements in such a manner as to change context. And I'd be surprised if you didn't see plenty of examples of that first hand, not too long ago.

And in the meantime, it IS incumbent upon those giving information to reporters to do so in a way that's clear, concise and compelling.

I read the article to say the news organizations must agree to get approval to quote anything the speaker may say in the interview. I could understand a reporter running a proposed quote by the speaker to check for correctness prior to publication. But insisting on approval of all quotes just goes too far.

charlie

Would the 'newsmaker' prefer to see the reporters reckless spin and at least have a chance to challenge it? Or, would he/she prefer to see a disclaimer such as "due to this 'newsmaker's' policy of message management, etc." every time his/her name is mentioned. Why isn't this story about the legions of news outlets that drew a line and said no to this nonsense?

Something like:

We attempted to contact so and so for clarification. We were told that our story or quotes had to be approved by them prior to publication. We concluded that any information acquired under those circumstances would be of no value and beneath reasonable standards of good journalim.

How many times would a 'newsmaker' want to see that? How much more respect would you have for a journalist if you read that instead of the absurd managed message?

That's not a horrible idea, taxfoe, but most media outlets would simply say "Mr. Smith declined comment" and leave it at that, rather than explain the reason for the refusal. The public views those four words damning as they stand.

For what it's worth, a variation of this has already been happening at the local level.
I've read articles about meetings or events that I've attended, and found quotes that were not stated in that meeting or event. (I've even read quotes made from people who didn't attend the meeting in question at all.) The reporter has had an email exchange with a speaker of that meeting and uses that as opposed to what got actually covered in the public venue.

I attended a public forum 18 months ago. People asked excellent questions, and got revealing answers, it was a great, informative event. However, none of that made it to print. The reporter had an email exchange with the public official speaker, and used the event as a "backdrop" in his article. The speaker cleaned up and sanitized his comments, and even changed some of his answers 180 degrees from what he had stated at that forum.

I was upset enough to write a LTTE and report what I had actually heard at the event, and how it contradicted what made it to print. They would not print my LTTE. After a number of attempts to get it into print, the editor there finally admitted he just didn't want to make that public official look bad, nor did he wish to contradict his own reporter. Why have public information forums like that when the reporter is just going to make up the content, "reporting" fiction as the news? I've noticed this sort of thing happening locally, far too often, it's misleading and a disservice to readers.

" . . but most media outlets would simply say . . "

Unfortunately, it would appear from the article, a lot of media outlets are content to run with approved news.

"The public views those four words damning as they stand."

For me, that would be a matter of context. If the story is 'Mitt strapped the dog to the roof of his car, I'd say good for Mitt. If the story was Mitt's intentions as to farm subsidies, I'd agree with you.

I'm just trying to imagine a Mass hack telling Howie Carr that it's time to come clean but 'I want final approval on the story'. I doubt that would get a 'declined to comment' and if it ran, we would be given a clear explanation of how the story was obtained.

More message management: NBC does not appreciate criticism.

"Either way, [it's] quite worrying that NBC, whose parent company is an Olympic sponsor, is apparently trying (and, in this case, succeeding) in shutting down the Twitter accounts of journalists who are critical of their Olympic coverage."

In a similar vein, I've long wondered why the U.S. Congressional Record - transcriptions of debate in the U.S. Senate and House - allow editing of remarks. I'm not talking about the policy of allowing the addition of clearly designated written remarks to the record. I mean editing, including deleting, what was actual said on the record.

The same policy holds true for the Maine Legislative Record.

Best,
skf

An update: "Let us now access the state of the free press in this land of ... well, of press freedom. The assessment? Pathetic. Not because of any government clampdown, but because of increasing press pusillanimity."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/26-0

charlie