God for them. Journalists and editors need to unite on this issue. Too much good ol' boy crap between the media and the government.

"In other news, politicians have been tweaking..."

I knew it.

make me some tea: Good for them. Journalists and editors need to unite on this issue. Too much good ol' boy crap between the media and the government.

TTFY.

William de Worde seen nodding in approval.

Honestly, I get this to some degree. A quote can easily be taken out of context. If I was being interviewed I would want to examine the quotes and make sure none of them were taken out of context so that I was quoted accurately. Of course this can quickly get out of hand.

I seriously think you should consider passing a law down there in the US about how the media cannot knowingly lie/mislead the public. Freedom of speech or no, that just seems like common sense. It's why Fox was denied a broadcast license here in Canada.

Too late, Journalism. Your integrity is dead.

MindStalker: Honestly, I get this to some degree. A quote can easily be taken out of context. If I was being interviewed I would want to examine the quotes and make sure none of them were taken out of context so that I was quoted accurately. Of course this can quickly get out of hand.

There's a difference between clarification and changing intent.

MindStalker: Honestly, I get this to some degree. A quote can easily be taken out of context. If I was being interviewed I would want to examine the quotes and make sure none of them were taken out of context so that I was quoted accurately. Of course this can quickly get out of hand.

Given the media propensity to take quotes out of context the moment the context is over, it makes some sense. But there's a difference between ensuring the quotes are accurate and creating one's own context to put quotes into.

Journalist will still allow politicians to tweak their nipples in exchange for an interview.

So how long until some politicians launch an "investigation" that finds that National Journal funds terrorists or drug runners or some other such nonsense?

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.

In other words, "We're still doing this".

Either journalists maintain their professional integrity in one of society's most important roles, or politicians are denied another venue for their self-serving face time. I'm not seeing the downside here.

I've never heard of the National Journal.

MindStalker: Honestly, I get this to some degree. A quote can easily be taken out of context. If I was being interviewed I would want to examine the quotes and make sure none of them were taken out of context so that I was quoted accurately. Of course this can quickly get out of hand.

From the way the article states it ("Quotes sent back to reporters are often edited for style and clarity."), it sounds like "I think short people should be exterminated" could easily be clarified into, "I love Randy Newman songs".

dualplains: William de Worde seen nodding in approval.

Havelock Vetenari reportedly concerned about implications.

Philip Francis Queeg: I've never heard of the National Journal.

And because of this, you likely never will

I request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

dualplains: William de Worde seen nodding in approval.

He's wdw (at) times (dot) AM, yes?

CptnSpldng: dualplains: William de Worde seen nodding in approval.

Havelock Vetenari reportedly concerned about implications.

Sam Vimes ready to straighten things out (as always).

MindStalker: Honestly, I get this to some degree. A quote can easily be taken out of context. If I was being interviewed I would want to examine the quotes and make sure none of them were taken out of context so that I was quoted accurately. Of course this can quickly get out of hand.

If you don't mean it don't say it.

However, I doubt you're a politician so I would work with you. I am willing to work with the local bar owner I am doing a story on this week ALOT more than I work with the Congressman who comes to town.

/csb time on
Hell, his aide shoves an recorder in my face (dickishly in my space not "recording for accuracy close") so what he says I quote. If you need to clarify a quote (it was 1976 not 1978 or something along those lines, I understand) but politicians are looking to get their talking points out and many other them don't know how to talk without talking points. That's why you ask them one question and they answer with some talking point.
//csb time off

jjorsett: MindStalker: Honestly, I get this to some degree. A quote can easily be taken out of context. If I was being interviewed I would want to examine the quotes and make sure none of them were taken out of context so that I was quoted accurately. Of course this can quickly get out of hand.

From the way the article states it ("Quotes sent back to reporters are often edited for style and clarity."), it sounds like "I think short people should be exterminated" could easily be clarified into, "I love Randy Newman songs".

And vice versa. Hence the problem. Media outlets are not interested in accurate reporting if accuracy gets in the way of circulation/pageviews/ratings. Asking for approval of quotations is Public Relations 101, and not just for politicians.

fustanella: dualplains: William de Worde seen nodding in approval.

He's wdw (at) times (dot) AM, yes?

What, his c-mail address? Sounds right to me!

"Not sure I see a problem with the source verifying what he said. I mean, it's not like I'm doing the tweaking..."

MasterThief: jjorsett: MindStalker: Honestly, I get this to some degree. A quote can easily be taken out of context. If I was being interviewed I would want to examine the quotes and make sure none of them were taken out of context so that I was quoted accurately. Of course this can quickly get out of hand.

From the way the article states it ("Quotes sent back to reporters are often edited for style and clarity."), it sounds like "I think short people should be exterminated" could easily be clarified into, "I love Randy Newman songs".

And vice versa. Hence the problem. Media outlets are not interested in accurate reporting if accuracy gets in the way of circulation/pageviews/ratings. Asking for approval of quotations is Public Relations 101, and not just for politicians.

National Journal apparently is. And is willing to deny themselves potential circulation/pageviews/ratings by not getting "that interview" for some reason. Either they weren't getting it anyway, or they are okay with not having it because they think they'll get circulation/pageviews/ratings by playing the journo-game the way it's meant to be played.

Sadly, you're probably right. But politicians should be playing by the rules of our Press. Not the other way around. Otherwise, what's the purpose of the press? Just have politicians circulate pre-approved talking points directly and take the middle man out.

Journalistic standards have plummeted in the last decade or two. Investigative journalism has disappeared completely and its never coming back. We have no one to blame for this unfortunate state of affairs but ourselves... the public.

Most quotes needed to be tweaked slightly. It does help clarify things and keeps the speaker from looking completely foolish. It's very difficult to get your point across clearly during every part of a long interview.

Troy McClure: Dr. Linus Irving of the Sloan-Ketterling Memorial Institute
writes, "How does Matt Groening find the time to write and draw an
entire `Simpsons' episode every week?" For the answer to this, we
went straight to the source.
[through a window, a shot of Matt at a desk]

Matt Groening: [seeing the camera] Get out of my office!
[picks up a gun, shoots at the camera]

Troy McClure: Of course, what Matt _meant_ to say, according to his attorneys,
is that he couldn't possibly do it alone! And he insisted that we
make time to acknowledge the hard work of everyone who makes "The
Simpsons" possible.

Philip Francis Queeg: I've never heard of the National Journal.

From Wiki: National Journal is aimed at Washington insiders.[2] It is mostly read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations and lobbyists. Most of the journal's content can be accessed only by subscribers. The yearly subscription rate is $1,160, or $525 for just the weekly hardcopy magazine.

Somehow I don't think we're the target audience.