NY Times-- the secret is out, reporters confess that they let politicians edit their stories!

by moshe 23 Replies latest social current

  • moshe
    moshe

    In order to have access to politicians, they agree ahead of time to submit their stories for "editing" before publication! Perhaps the tabloid news media is reporting the facts after all.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/latest-word-on-the-campaign-trail-i-take-it-back.html?_r=1

    Latest Word on the Trail? I Take It Back

    By JEREMY W. PETERS
    Published: July 15, 2012

    The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.
    Related

    They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.

    Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president's top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.

    The verdict from the campaign - an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script - is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.

    The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism's perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.

    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."

    It is a double-edged sword for journalists, who are getting the on-the-record quotes they have long asked for, but losing much of the spontaneity and authenticity in their interviews.

    Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, can be foul-mouthed. But readers would not know it because he deletes the curse words before approving his quotes. Brevity is not a strong suit of David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser. So he tightens up his sentences before giving them the O.K.

    Stuart Stevens, the senior Romney strategist, is fond of disparaging political opponents by quoting authors like Walt Whitman and referring to historical figures like H. R. Haldeman, Richard Nixon's chief of staff. But such clever lines later rarely make it past Mr. Stevens.

    Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them. No one said the editing altered the meaning of a quote. The changes were almost always small and seemingly unnecessary, they said.

    Those who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. "It's not something I'm particularly proud of because there's a part of me that says, ‘Don't do it, don't agree to their terms,' " said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal. "There are times when this feels like I'm dealing with some of my editors. It's like, ‘You just changed this because you could!' "

    It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms--

    more--

  • moshe
    moshe

    Did you know that political debates have a preapproved list of questions and topics that are agreed to beforehand by the debators? They approve what questions can be asked and what topics are "off limits", otherwise they won't participate.

  • Scott77
    Scott77

    I think, may be the precensorship is an attempt to avoid the another embrassing "Joe the Plumber", (whose real name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher).

    Scott77

  • dgp
    dgp

    My opinion is that it's not only the campaign stuff that gets edited. If the New York Times dared to publish an article on this, it must be a lot worse than they are admitting.

    It would be easy to blame only the politicians. I think journalists are the real culprits here. They are supposed to tell us the umcomfortable news, not to become part of anybody's public relations department. By giving in, they betrayed the public's right to know.

    In countries that are a lot less free than the United States, similar things happen; but journalists are criticized for that. Often, some media are "banned" from interviewing politicians or public officials on the grounds that they "misinform". Well, at least these journalists cannot be said to have submitted to somebody else's interests.

    I think we should also take note that few people want to speak their true minds these days. I think it would be too easy to say it's out of fear of being misunderstood or hurting others. I think it's more a desire to always appear correct and always say the right thing; it doesn't matter if you're telling a lie. Language is the tool to deceive, not the tool to inform.

    Personally, I prefer the blunt person to the euphemistic one.

    As to debates, in Latin America that happens all the time. One has to look at what they don't say, not what they say. You know they have it rehearsed.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Reading quickly, this has to do with source attribution, not reporting in general.

    People always find what they want to find.

  • dgp
    dgp

    If I were a public figure and said "The f*ck I will raise taxes", only to raise taxes later, of course I would want to be able to "authorize" people quoting me as "the source".

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    The New York Times has again and again proven over the past decade that it is only a grim shadow of its former self.

  • betterdaze
    betterdaze

    James, I beg to disagree in this particular instance. Regardless of the Times' perceived political bent, forked-tongued politicians and their cronies of all stripes are holding the press in a hostage situation.

    This political reporter should be commended for holding them accountable to the voters whose interests they feign to represent.


    Follow-up article: National Journal Bars Quotations Tweaked by Sources

    By JEREMY W. PETERS
    Published: July 22, 2012

    National Journal said it would ban the use of quotations that had been massaged or manipulated by its sources, joining a growing chorus of news organizations that are objecting to a practice that has become increasingly common in political journalism.

    In a memorandum to the staff, Ron Fournier, National Journal’s editor in chief, said, “If a public official wants to use NJ as a platform for his/her point of view, the price of admission is a quote that is on-record, unedited and unadulterated.”

    Quote approval has become accepted in Washington and on the campaign trail, with politicians and candidates often refusing to grant interviews unless they have final say over how their quotations appear in print. The New York Times examined the issue in an article last week, drawing attention to a part of news gathering that journalists had long complained about but felt pressured into accepting.

    Both the Obama and Romney campaigns routinely demand that reporters consent to quote approval when giving interviews. If the reporters agree, quotations from campaign officials, advisers and candidates’ family members have to be sent to a press aide for the final go-ahead. Quotes sent back to reporters are often edited for style and clarity.

    If reporters refuse, they are not granted an interview. National Journal is among several news outlets that have said they find quote approval to be troubling, especially now that it has become standard for many politicians.

    The Times has said that it encourages its reporters to push back against sources who demand quote approval and that 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.

    Politico’s editor in chief, John Harris, said he advised reporters to resist such conditions for interviews and expressed dismay that political figures were becoming more comfortable avoiding on-the-record interviews.

    “Journalists need to work hard to make sure we are doing everything possible to insist on accessibility and accountability,” Mr. Harris said last week.

  • Diest
    Diest

    It is hard to have a free press when you only have corporate news. They are willing to give up their jurnalistic credibility to fill news papers.

  • talesin
    talesin

    At least the NYT has the guts to print the truth about this story.

    When are ppl going to wake up and see that our governments are FASCIST.

    Embedded journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan are TOLD what they are and are not allowed to report on. If they do not agree to toe the line, they are left behind.

    WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

    tal

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit