Leading what some journalists hope will be a change in behavior by major news organizations, the New York Times has told its reporters not to engage in "after-the-fact quote approval" with sources, a practice that drew scorn when recently publicized in a Times article.
"Despite our reporters’ best efforts, we fear that demands for after-the-fact “quote approval” by sources and their press aides have gone too far," read an internal memo to employees distributed on Thursday to lay out the new policy.
"So starting now, we want to draw a clear line on this. Citing Times policy, reporters should say no if a source demands, as a condition of an interview, that quotes be submitted afterward to the source or a press aide to review, approve or edit," the policy states.
(For the record, this reporter has never encountered "quote approval" - but that's most likely because I'm not a media big shot and because I deal mainly with members of Congress, while avoiding aides and official spokespersons as much as possible.)
"Quote approval" has evidently become more common for those reporters looking for on-the-record quotes from top officials in the White House, a presidential administration, and high level campaign aides.
Just writing about the idea of reading back a quote to someone you interviewed - so they can approve it - that concept just makes me wince like I'm in the dentist's chair; it's not something I would ever think about agreeing to do.
Maybe it is partly a difference between radio and newspapers - I record all my interviews and it's there on tape - there is no need to go back and ask you if you really meant what you said, because I can play it back on the air.
Here is the new policy of the New York Times - we'll see if others adopt something similar.
So starting now, we want to draw a clear line on this. Citing Times policy, reporters should say no if a source demands, as a condition of an interview, that quotes be submitted afterward to the source or a press aide to review, approve or edit.
We understand that talking to sources on background — not for attribution — is often valuable to reporting, and unavoidable. Negotiation over the terms of using quotations, whenever feasible, should be done as part of the same interview — with an "on the record" coda, or with an agreement at the end of the conversation to put some parts on the record. In some cases, a reporter or editor may decide later, after a background interview has taken place, that we want to push for additional on-the-record quotes. In that situation, where the initiative is ours, this is acceptable. Again, quotes should not be submitted to press aides for approval or edited after the fact.
We realize that at times this approach will make our push for on-the-record quotes even more of a challenge. But in the long run, we think resetting the bar, and making clear that we will not agree to put after-the-fact quote-approval in the hands of press aides, will help in that effort.
We know our reporters face ever-growing obstacles in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere. We want to strengthen their hand in pushing back against the quote-approval process, which all of us dislike. Being able to cite a clear Times policy should aid their efforts and insulate them from some of the pressure they face.
Any potential exceptions to this approach should be discussed with a department head or a masthead editor.
Leading what some journalists hope will be a change in behavior by major news organizations, the New York Times has told its reporters not to engage in "after-the-fact quote approval" with sources, a practice that drew scorn when recently publicized in a Times article. "Despite our reporters’ best efforts, we ...
