Last updated: July 16, 2012 - 8:17am
The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative. 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.
- National Journal Bars Quotations Tweaked by Sources
- Who Do You Trust?
- In New Policy, The Times Forbids After-the-Fact ‘Quote Approval’
- 'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights
- Journalism 2009: Desperate Metaphors, Desperate Revenue Models, And The Desperate Need For Better Journalism
- As 17 more states join class action against book publishers and Apple, new details revealed
- The Puppetry of Quotation Approval
- Steve Jobs and the Future of Newspapers
- No more Romney interviews?
- Verizon: In the game of 4G, spectrum trumps technology
- The Boys on Le Bus: Foreign Press Mines Local Angles in US Primary
- Rooting for the Race
- Media Should Set 'Rules' for 2012: No Interviews, No Coverage
- Few Are Booking Ads on 'The Book of Daniel'
- NYT editor: Journalism pre-dates newspapers and will outlast newspapers